- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

Externally override flash layout and pin configurations (out-of-tree platforms?)

by Rønningstad, Øyvind

Hi all In our work integrating TFM into Zephyr and the nRF Connect SDK, it's apparent that the integration would be a lot smoother if we could specify TFM's flash layout externally. Looking into it a bit, I came up with a draft proposal here: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/trusted-firmware-m/pull/18/files We could just modify our own platforms to this and be happy, but I'm wondering if there would be interest in standardizing something. Now, a related problem is: How can we make it easier to add multiple boards based on a single chip. For the Nordic platforms we've already separated the chip-specific code (nRF9160/nRF5340) from the board specific code (DK/PDK), and for the boards, it really boils down to pin configurations. We could allow to specify pins via Cmake instead, to easily allow users to support their production PCBs. But (this was brought up in the above PR) we can also solve both problems by adding support for out-of-tree platforms. For example, allow TFM to be built like so: cmake -DTFM_PLATFORM=../../../../my_custom_board ... This would probably be less work that designing a new interface for overriding flash layouts and pin configurations. What are your thoughts? BR, Øyvind Rønningstad

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

gcc compiler requirement documentation

by Christopher Brand

Looking at docs/getting_started//tfm_sw_requirement.rst it says that the version requirement for gcc is "GNU Arm compiler v7.3.1+". then it describes where to get that toolchain, but in that section the two versions it suggests are "GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain: 6-2017-q1-update" and "GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain: 7-2018-q2-update". The former is gcc version 6.3.1, which doesn't actually meet the requirements. Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> This message and any attachments may contain confidential information from Cypress or its subsidiaries. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message.

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL description confusing/wrong

by Tamas Ban

Hi Thomas, Here is the fix: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7196 Actually since the CMake refactor the default value can be overridden from the command line, so it is possible to enable the logging even in Release builds. BR Tamas -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M Sent: 2020. november 25., szerda 8:50 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL description confusing/wrong The description of how to set MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL in tfm_secure_boot.rst appears wrong, or at least unclear. --- - MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL: Can be used to configure the level of logging in MCUBoot. The possible values are the following: - **LOG_LEVEL_OFF** - **LOG_LEVEL_ERROR** - **LOG_LEVEL_WARNING** - **LOG_LEVEL_INFO** - **LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG** The logging in MCUBoot can be disabled and thus the code size can be reduced by setting it to ``LOG_LEVEL_OFF``. Its value depends on the build type. If the build type is ``Debug`` and a value has been provided (e.g. through the command line or the CMake GUI) then that value will be used, otherwise it is ``LOG_LEVEL_INFO`` by default. In case of different kinds of ``Release`` builds its value is set to ``LOG_LEVEL_OFF`` (any other value will be overridden). --- I tried enabling MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG by adding -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG to the cmake command line, but that set the level to -1. I also tried -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=4, which also set it to -1. I then noticed that the default setting in CMakeCache.txt is "MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL:STRING=INFO", so I instead used -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=DEBUG, which worked. I would also like to be able to use logging for Release builds, as this may assist chasing down optimization issues. Thomas -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

TF-M v1.2.0 release

by Anton Komlev

Hello, TF-M project released version v1.2.0, tagged as TF-Mv1.2.0. This release has started using adopted semantic versioning as described in the release_process.rst<https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/docs/contr…> Please take a look into the release notes for the new features and changes. Thanks to everyone who directly and indirectly contributed to this milestone. Anton Komlev TF-M technical lead Arm Ltd.

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL description confusing/wrong

by Thomas Törnblom

The description of how to set MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL in tfm_secure_boot.rst appears wrong, or at least unclear. --- - MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL: Can be used to configure the level of logging in MCUBoot. The possible values are the following: - **LOG_LEVEL_OFF** - **LOG_LEVEL_ERROR** - **LOG_LEVEL_WARNING** - **LOG_LEVEL_INFO** - **LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG** The logging in MCUBoot can be disabled and thus the code size can be reduced by setting it to ``LOG_LEVEL_OFF``. Its value depends on the build type. If the build type is ``Debug`` and a value has been provided (e.g. through the command line or the CMake GUI) then that value will be used, otherwise it is ``LOG_LEVEL_INFO`` by default. In case of different kinds of ``Release`` builds its value is set to ``LOG_LEVEL_OFF`` (any other value will be overridden). --- I tried enabling MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG by adding -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG to the cmake command line, but that set the level to -1. I also tried -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=4, which also set it to -1. I then noticed that the default setting in CMakeCache.txt is "MCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL:STRING=INFO", so I instead used -DMCUBOOT_LOG_LEVEL=DEBUG, which worked. I would also like to be able to use logging for Release builds, as this may assist chasing down optimization issues. Thomas

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - November 26

by David Hu

Hi Anton, I'd like to share a proposal to improve dual-cpu mailbox. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 4:59 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Technical Forum call - November 26 Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, November 26 at 15:00-16:00 GMT (US friendly time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Recording and slides of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/ Best regards, Anton

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2

by Anton Komlev

Hi, New TF-M Release Candidate 3 is tagged by TF-Mv1.2-RC3 Please update all repositories as it contain all fixes for issues found in RC2. Best regards, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 11 November 2020 15:34 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2 Hi, New TF-M Release Candidate 2 is tagged by TF-Mv1.2-RC2. Please update all repositories as it contain fixes for issues found in RC1. Best regards, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 04 November 2020 16:35 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2 Hi, All TF-M repositories are tagged with TF-Mv1.2-RC1 tag, marking the code freeze and beginning of the release candidate testing. 1. tf-m-tools 2. tf-m-tests 3. trusted-firmware-m 4. tf-m-ci-scripts 5. tf-m-job-configs Please use this tag for tests and report all issues found here. The best, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 02 November 2020 14:28 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [TF-M] Code freeze heads up for TF-M v1.2 Hi All, This is a reminder and heads up that TF-Mv1.2 release is planned for the end of November and TF-M code repository is aimed for freeze on Nov 4th (Wed), tagged by TF-Mv1.2-RC1 for testing. Availability of the tag will be notified via this mailing list. Thanks, Anton

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Technical Forum call - November 26

by Anton Komlev

Hello, The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, November 26 at 15:00-16:00 GMT (US friendly time zone). Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics. Recording and slides of previous meetings are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/ Best regards, Anton

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning

by Minos Galanakis

Hi, Following up the current discussions on semantic versioning, I have prepared a patch <https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7075/1> . Feel free to review and comment. Expanded patch link: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/7075/1 Minos ________________________________ From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 16 November 2020 17:32 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi, Well, yes. Not sure what backwards compatibility would mean in a complex application with a configurable set of services and service capabilities. Semantic versioning could work quite well for components (i.e. secure service implementations) though. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: 16 November 2020 18:04 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi George, All, Thanks for the thoughts. Can I assume that you suggest to stay with option 1? The semantic versioning was proposed several times and sounds reasonable because it gives a meaning to each version component so downstream projects could rely on it. Yes, a version of a product represents some quality status but in my view that depends on convention. For downstream projects reference, TF-M issues releases periodically so a version represents a stable point in time and occasionally brings new features / fixes. Cheers, Anton From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M Sent: 16 November 2020 08:17 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi, I miss something here. What is being discussed, what is the purpose of changing version numbering? * Is more granularity needed and each or some lesser quality levels should be assigned a version number too? Currently a new version number is assigned if a new SW set reaches “Release” quality level. (Whatever that might be.) * Is there need for expressing backwards compatibility better? * Is the aim to enhance existing version numbers just by making them following a well-defined standard? I have the feeling different people are talking about different sub-topics. I think the most important purpose or having release numbers is to express quality. It could help on version numbers if quality would be defined cleaner. /George From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: 16 November 2020 09:06 To: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Hu@arm.com>>; David Wang <David.Wang(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Wang@arm.com>>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning I would vote for Option 3, and “.2” - Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag. – This provides the flexibility to have a released version with critical fixes only. If TF-M users want all the changes between the release and the fix they can take the master branch as well. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 3:45 PM To: David Wang <David.Wang(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Wang@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems more reasonable to me. Hi David, I think we can leave tag v1.x.0 as it is and create a new tag v1.x.1 for this critical fix on master branch. It can be more easier to distinguish between tags. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of David Wang via TF-M Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 2:53 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 is a good. Just to clarify, for example, if v1.x.0 released, and we got a critical fix 2 months later. Then in your proposal, we: * Tag the current master which includes the fixing patch (and may also include some other merged/ongoing features after last release) as v1.x.1, or * Backport the fixing patches to the existing v1.x.0 tag (keep it in a new branch) and tag the tip of the v1.x release branch as v1.x.1 Thanks. Regards, David Wang From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Townsend via TF-M Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2020 3:45 AM To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Semantic versioning Hi Anton, Option 3 seems the most sensible to me for a project like TF-M at this stage. Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 20:19, Anton Komlev via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote: Hi, I would like to continue the discussion on TF-M semantic versioning started on the last tech forum. Currently TF-M uses a loosely defined versioning schema with major and minor versions, following TF-A. There are several calls to switch TF-M to semantic versioning. Here is the reminder of the meaning: (https://semver.org/) v1.2.3 : 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner, and 3. PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes. This is a good way to go for a mature project but TF-M will overkill from everyday re-versioning because of new patches. It was discussed on the forum and several options were proposed: 1. Do nothing, reasonably bumping up versions on release time only. 2. Use semantic versioning ignoring changes in PATCH by keeping it 0. So upcoming version could be: v1.2.0, next v1.3.0 and nothing in between. 3. Use option 2 but change PATCH when critical code change delivered within release cadence like a security vulnerability fix to let down-stream project relay on a fixed version. 4. Other ideas? Personally I tend to follow option 3 but looking for the community input. Thanks, Anton. -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

4 years, 1 month

2
1
0 0

Blog for Amazon FreeRTOS Gateway Demo based on TF-M Profile Small

by David Wang

Hi, In Linaro Virtual Connect 20 (LVC20), Shebu and I presented a session "Scalable Security Using Trusted Firmware-M Profiles" (ref[1]). It basically shows an example of using FreeRTOS+TF-M Profile Small on armv8m devices to connect to AWS cloud through a Gateway. The key features demonstrated in the example: * Symmetric cipher based secure connection - TLS PSK * Usage of (symmetric) attestation * Device-Gateway-Cloud secure channel example A blog (https://www.trustedfirmware.org/blog/amazon-freertos-tfm-blog/) is shared in tf.org if you want to know more details of the design. Thanks. Ref: [1] Scalable Security Using Trusted Firmware-M Profiles - https://connect.linaro.org/resources/lvc20/lvc20-213/ Regards, David Wang ARM Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Phone: +86-21-6154 9142 (ext. 59142)

4 years, 1 month

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M