Hi Chris,
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. (I don’t where I wasn’t clear.
😊)
The usage of the name/description of manifest lists is limited to tell the user which Secure Partition the manifest tool is talking about.
So I think the name of manifest files should be descriptive enough, although it is a C Marco name.
As in the manifest list itself, when developers read it, the file name of the “manifest” should also enough to recognize the Secure Partitions.
Well, initially we can keep it and rename it to “description”.
Best Regards,
Kevin
From: Chris.Brand--- via TF-M <tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 2:04 AM
To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-M] Re: Service vs Partition wording in manifest files
An example might help.
In tools/tfm_manifest_list.yaml:
"name":
"TF-M Internal Trusted Storage Partition",
In
secure_fw/partitions/internal_trusted_storage//tfm_internal_trusted_storage.yaml:
"name":
"TFM_SP_ITS",
So the two “names” for the same partition don’t actually match.
I guess the other way to fix this would be to get rid of the manifest_list “name” altogether and instead grab the manifest “name” attribute – was that what you meant?
Chris
From: Chris.Brand--- via TF-M <tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: August 10, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Kevin.Peng@arm.com;
tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-M] Re: Service vs Partition wording in manifest files
|
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open
attachments unless you
validate it is safe. |
Hi Kevin,
I did see that message. The attribute in the manifest lists that matches the “name” in the manifests is actually “short_name” (which, as it turns out, was not actually used and has now been removed). That’s actually the confusion that I
think we should fix 😊
The “name” in manifest lists is the human-readable name of the partition, not the C macro name, which is why I think it should probably be “description” rather than “name”. Looking at tfm_parse_manifest_list.py, the “name” attribute in
manifest lists is pretty much only used in calls to logging.
Chris
From: Kevin Peng <Kevin.Peng@arm.com>
Sent: August 9, 2022 7:34 PM
To: Brand Chris (CSCA CSS ICW SW PSW 1) <Chris.Brand@infineon.com>;
tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: RE: Service vs Partition wording in manifest files
|
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open
attachments unless you
validate it is safe. |
Hi Chris,
Probably you missed my message.
I suggested to remove the “name” in manifest lists and refer to the “name” in manifest files directly.
The “name” in manifest lists is only used to refer to a Secure Partition to distinguish between each other.
I don’t think the manifest tool require a “description” for the Secure Partitions.
So I believe the “name” in manifest files should be enough.
What’s your thoughts?
Best Regards,
Kevin
From: Chris.Brand--- via TF-M <tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 3:31 AM
To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-M] Re: Service vs Partition wording in manifest files
Any thoughts on renaming “name” in the manifest list files to “description”?
“name” in manifest files is a C macro identifier (all uppercase, no spaces).
“description” is supported in manifest files and is a human-readable string
So it seems that what is now “name” in manifest lists is a lot closer to “description” than it is to “name” in manifests.
Chris
From: Kevin Peng <Kevin.Peng@arm.com>
Sent: August 7, 2022 7:29 PM
To: Hunko Bohdan (CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW 3) <Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>; Brand Chris (CSCA CSS ICW SW PSW 1) <Chris.Brand@infineon.com>;
tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: RE: Service vs Partition wording in manifest files
|
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open
attachments unless you
validate it is safe. |
Ah, sorry.
Should be *NO* usage for “short_name”.
Best Regards,
Kevin
From: Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com <Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 7:40 PM
To: Kevin Peng <Kevin.Peng@arm.com>;
Chris.Brand@infineon.com;
tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: RE: Service vs Partition wording in manifest files
Hi Kevin,
Don’t quite understood your response.
Do you mean that “short_name” is not used and should be removed?
Regards,
Bohdan Hunko
Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine
Engineer
CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW
Mobile: +38099 50 19 714
Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com
From: Kevin Peng <Kevin.Peng@arm.com>
Sent: Friday, 5 August 2022 05:29
To: Hunko Bohdan (CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW 3) <Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>; Brand Chris (CSCA CSS ICW SW PSW 1) <Chris.Brand@infineon.com>;
tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: RE: Service vs Partition wording in manifest files
|
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open
attachments unless you
validate it is safe. |
Hi Bohdan,
There is usage of “short_name”.
You should be able to remove it.
Hi Chris,
I think we should avoid duplicating the attributes between manifests and manifest lists.
Could be confusing to have same attributes in different files.
The manifest tool should directly refer to the “name” in manifests and then the one in manifest lists can be removed as well.
Best Regards,
Kevin
From: Bohdan.Hunko--- via TF-M <tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: Friday, August 5, 2022 1:42 AM
To: Chris.Brand@infineon.com;
tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-M] Re: Service vs Partition wording in manifest files
Hi everyone,
I don’t actually see any usage of “short_name” manifest field. Also this field is present in generated files list (tools/tfm_generated_file_list.yaml) but also not used.
Should “short_name” field be removed, or I am missing something?
Regards,
Bohdan Hunko
Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine
Engineer
CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW
Mobile: +38099 50 19 714
Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com
From: Chris.Brand--- via TF-M <tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2022 19:45
To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-M] Re: Service vs Partition wording in manifest files
|
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open
attachments unless you
validate it is safe. |
It would be nice if the manifest list files used “name” and “description” rather than “short_name” and “name”, to be consistent with the manifest files.
Chris
From: Hunko Bohdan (CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW 3) <Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>
Sent: August 4, 2022 1:12 AM
To: Kevin Peng <Kevin.Peng@arm.com>;
tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: Brand Chris (CSCA CSS ICW SW PSW 1) <Chris.Brand@infineon.com>; Kamath Dheeraj (CYSC CSS ICW APP IAE) <Dheeraj.Kamath@infineon.com>
Subject: RE: Service vs Partition wording in manifest files
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for the reply. I will create a patch for that and will add you as a reviewer.
Regards,
Bohdan Hunko
Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine
Engineer
CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW
Mobile: +38099 50 19 714
Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com
From: Kevin Peng <Kevin.Peng@arm.com>
Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2022 05:22
To: Hunko Bohdan (CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW 3) <Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>;
tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: Brand Chris (CSCA CSS ICW SW PSW 1) <Chris.Brand@infineon.com>; Kamath Dheeraj (CYSC CSS ICW APP IAE) <Dheeraj.Kamath@infineon.com>
Subject: RE: Service vs Partition wording in manifest files
|
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open
attachments unless you
validate it is safe. |
Hi Bohdan,
Yes, the names should be “xxx Partition”.
I guess they are called “service” because the first a few “services” are created prior to FF-M and there was no concept of “Partition”.
Only my guess.
Anyway, they should be changed to “Partition”.
Best Regards,
Kevin
From: Bohdan.Hunko--- via TF-M <tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 3:47 AM
To: tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: Chris.Brand@infineon.com;
Dheeraj.Kamath@infineon.com
Subject: [TF-M] Service vs Partition wording in manifest files
Hi everyone,
From what I see manifest lists (e.g. tools/tfm_manifest_list.yaml) describe partitions, but “name” field there (which is a description of the partition) uses “Service” word, for example:
"name": "Protected Storage Service",
Shouldn’t this be "name": "Protected Storage Partition"
?
Why do TFM uses Service when describing the Partition?
Regards,
Bohdan Hunko
Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine
Engineer
CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW
Mobile: +38099 50 19 714
Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com