Hi,
Thanks a lot for your support.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 12:01 PM Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 at 10:21, Enric Balletbo i Serra eballetb@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Ilias,
On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 1:31 AM Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 23:11, Enric Balletbo i Serra eballetb@redhat.com wrote:
Hi Ilias,
Thanks for your quick answer.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 4:48 PM Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Enric,
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 12:26, Enric Balletbo i Serra eballetb@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking for any advice/clue to help me to progress on enabling TEE-base EFI Runtime Variable Service on TI a j784s4 platforms.
I basically followed the steps described in u-boot documentation [1], I enabled some debugging messages but I think I'm at the point that the problem might be in the StandaloneMM application, and I'm not sure how to debug it.
What I see is that when I run the tee-supplicant daemon, it looks like the tee_client_open_session() call loops forever and the tee_stmm_efi driver never ends to probe.
With debug enabled I got the following messages.
I assume reading and storing variables already works in U-Boot right?
Reading and storing variables to the RPMB partition in U-Boot works, that's using the mmc rpmb command from u-boot,
Are you talking about env variables? Perhaps you store them in the mmc and not the RPMB partition? There's some information here [0]
But setting CONFIG_EFI_MM_COMM_TEE=y in u-boot I end with a similar behaviour (although I'm not able to debug at u-boot level) What I see is that u-boot gets stuck when bootefi bootmgr is invoqued. I can also reproduce the issue with bootefi hello.
=> run bootcmd Scanning for bootflows in all bootdevs Seq Method State Uclass Part Name Filename
Scanning global bootmeth 'efi_mgr': ( gets stuck here)
or
=> bootefi hello (gets stuck)
To debug I disabled CONFIG_EFI_MM_COMM_TEE to not get stuck and bypass the error and go to Linux. My understanding is that CONFIG_EFI_MM_COMM_TEE is only required to read/write efi variables at u-boot level but OPTEE is running the StandaloneMM service. Am I right?
U-Boot has two ways of storing EFI variables [0] . You can either store them in a file or the RPMB partition. The correct thing to do, since you want to use the RPMB, is enable CONFIG_EFI_MM_COMM_TEE. I am not sure why the hand happens, but one thing we can improve is figure out why it hangs and print a useful message. There are a number of reasons that might lead to a failure. Is the RPMB key programmed on your board? Have a look at this [1] in case it helps
# tee-supplicant D/TC:? 0 tee_ta_init_session_with_context:557 Re-open trusted service 7011a688-ddde-4053-a5a9-7b3c4ddf13b8 D/TC:? 0 load_stmm:297 stmm load address 0x40004000 D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:859 Received FFA version D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
If I had to guess, OP-TEE doesn't store the variables in the RPMB, can you compile it with a bit more debugging enabled?
Here is a log with CFG_TEE_CORE_LOG_LEVEL=4, CFG_TEE_CORE_DEBUG=y and CFG_TEE_TA_LOG_LEVEL=4
https://paste.centos.org/view/eed83a5b
At the beginning of the log I see
D/TC:0 0 check_ta_store:449 TA store: "REE"
Which looks wrong to me as I built optee with: CFG_REE_FS=n CFG_RPMB_FS_DEV_ID=0 CFG_RPMB_FS=y
Yes it does look wrong. Our compilation flags are CFG_RPMB_FS=y CFG_RPMB_FS_DEV_ID=0 CFG_RPMB_WRITE_KEY=y CFG_RPMB_TESTKEY=y CFG_REE_FS=n CFG_CORE_ARM64_PA_BITS=48 CFG_SCTLR_ALIGNMENT_CHECK=n
Mine are very similar
make CROSS_COMPILE="$CC32" CROSS_COMPILE64="$CC64" \ PLATFORM=k3-j784s4 CFG_ARM64_core=y CFG_CONSOLE_UART=0x8 \ CFG_RPMB_FS_DEV_ID=0 CFG_REE_FS=n CFG_RPMB_FS=y \ CFG_RPMB_WRITE_KEY=y CFG_RPMB_TESTKEY=y \ CFG_STMM_PATH=BL32_AP_MM.fd \ CFG_CORE_HEAP_SIZE=524288 CFG_CORE_DYN_SHM=y CFG_SCTLR_ALIGNMENT_CHECK=n \ CFG_TEE_CORE_LOG_LEVEL=4 CFG_TEE_CORE_DEBUG=y CFG_TEE_TA_LOG_LEVEL=4
There is a difference with CFG_CORE_ARM64_PA_BITS=48 , my platform defines it to
core/arch/arm/plat-k3/conf.mk:$(call force,CFG_CORE_ARM64_PA_BITS,36)
But I don't think this is the problem.
The testkey etc aren't required if your board has a way of reading the RPMB key from a secure location -- in fact, using the testkey is not secure. Is the RPMB programmed on your board? Also can you make sure CFG_RPMB_FS_DEV_ID needs to be 0? How many sd interfaces your board has?
My board has two interfaces, an eMMC and a SD-card, 0 is indeed the eMMC and I'm using the testkey which I assume was programmed the first time I booted with all this. Unfortunately I lost the traces. But, optee_rpmb works. I.e:
=> optee_rpmb write test 1234 => optee_rpmb read test 4 Read 4 bytes, value = 1234
IOW in U-Boot does 'mmc dev 0 && mmc info' print information for the RPMB partition?
=> mmc dev 0 switch to partitions #0, OK mmc0(part 0) is current device => mmc info Device: mmc@4f80000 Manufacturer ID: 13 OEM: 4e Name: G1M15L Bus Speed: 200000000 Mode: HS400 (200MHz) Rd Block Len: 512 MMC version 5.1 High Capacity: Yes Capacity: 29.6 GiB Bus Width: 8-bit DDR Erase Group Size: 512 KiB HC WP Group Size: 8 MiB User Capacity: 29.6 GiB WRREL Boot Capacity: 31.5 MiB ENH RPMB Capacity: 4 MiB ENH Boot area 0 is not write protected Boot area 1 is not write protected => mmc list mmc@4f80000: 0 (eMMC) mmc@4fb0000: 1
Any interaction with efi gives me the same result (printenv -e, efidebug, bootefi ...)
=> efidebug query -bs -rt -nv D/TC:? 0 load_stmm:297 stmm load address 0x40004000 D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:859 Received FFA version D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request ... stuck here ... I need to reset the board
Will continue to see if I can get more useful messages
Thanks, Enric
Thanks /Ilias
I'll try to add some more prints to verify if REE is used as a store system, I assume this should say something about RPMB. Am I right with this?
And tracing the function calls gives me that:
tee_stmm_efi_probe() { tee_client_open_context() { optee_get_version() { tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800) } (ret=0xd) tee_ctx_match(); (ret=0x1) optee_smc_open() { tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800) optee_open() { tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800) } (ret=0x0) } (ret=0x0) } (ret=0xffff000004e71c80) tee_client_open_session() { optee_open_session() { tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800) optee_get_msg_arg() { tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800) tee_shm_get_va(); (ret=0xffff000002909000) } (ret=0xffff000002909000) tee_session_calc_client_uuid(); (ret=0x0) optee_to_msg_param(); (ret=0x0) optee_smc_do_call_with_arg() { tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800) tee_shm_get_va(); (ret=0xffff000002909000) tee_shm_get_va(); (ret=0xffff000002909060) optee_cq_wait_init(); (ret=0xffff000002e55910) optee_smccc_smc(); (ret=0xffff0004) tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800) optee_smccc_smc(); (ret=0xffff0004) tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800) optee_smccc_smc(); (ret=0xffff0004) tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800) optee_smccc_smc(); (ret=0xffff0004) tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800) optee_smccc_smc(); (ret=0xffff0004) ... continues sending this forever ... ... Hit ^C to stop recording ... tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800) optee_smccc_smc() {[1] https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/uefi/uefi.html#using-op-tee-for-ef...
Thanks in advance,
The most common problem with this is miscompiling the tee_supplicant application. Since we don't know if the system has an RPMB, we emulate it in the tee_supplicant. How did you get the supplicant and can you check if it was compiled with RPMB_EMU=0 or 1?
I'm using the tee-supplicant provided by the fedora package which is built with ` -DRPMB_EMU=0`, I think that's correct, right?
Yes, this is correct. We fixed the Fedora package to compile the supplicant correctly a while back.
[0] https://www.linaro.org/blog/uefi-secureboot-in-u-boot/ [1] https://apalos.github.io/Protected%20UEFI%20variables%20with%20U-Boot.html#P...
Regards /Ilias
Thanks, Enric
Thanks /Ilias
Enric