- TF-A - lists.trustedfirmware.org

security: BL2 at EL3 on v8a based system

by sandeep tripathy

Hi, With the RME feature BL2 has to run at EL3 instead of EL1_S. EL3 has a separate PAS not accessible to EL1_S. Is there any harm in choosing to run BL2 at EL3 instead of BL2 at S_EL1 even for non-RME(v8a) systems? Given that EL3 and EL1_S have access to the same PAS. I am trying to revisit the motivation to run BL2 at EL1_S. I see there was an old discussion at https://github.com/ARM-software/tf-issues/issues/445 The reasoning was not pointing to any issue in specific but a generic principle of less permissiveness. Thanks Sandeep

1 year, 12 months

2
4
1 0

Re: security: BL2 at EL3 on v8a based system

by Tripathy, Sandeep

Hi Manish, >>The existing name is more suitable for configuration where the platform has BL1 in it and BL2 can run at EL3 instead of S-EL1. Well, that is a minor thing to take care. V9 implementation does that in a way. >>This configuration is currently not available in TF-A but having this flexibility is not a bad idea and it can be platform's choice. That's my answer! And the default choice costs some memory with probably no increase in security (V8). >>BL31 can mask the secure world. Cant be done reliably on V8 (with root world V9 or EL2_S there is potential to compartmentalize the secure services as PAS isolation is feasible) Ex: EL1S can always overwrite the BL31 Xlat tables and take control of the vectors and many other ways depending on the platform. It's the same PAS! Thanks Sandeep

1 year, 12 months

1
0
0 0

[PATCH TF-A] fix(plat/rcar3): Fix RPC-IF device node name

by Geert Uytterhoeven

According to the Generic Names Recommendation in the Devicetree Specification Release v0.3, and the DT Bindings for the Renesas Reduced Pin Count Interface, the node name for a Renesas RPC-IF device should be "spi". The node name matters, as the node is enabled by passing a DT fragment from TF-A to subsequent software. Fix this by renaming the device nodes from "rpc" to "spi". Fixes: 12c75c8886a0ee69 ("feat(plat/rcar3): emit RPC status to DT fragment if RPC unlocked") Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas(a)glider.be> --- Background: On Renesas R-Car Gen3 platforms, the SPI Multi I/O Bus Controllers (RPC-IF) provide access to HyperFlash or QSPI storage. On production systems, they are typically locked by the TF-A firmware, unless TF-A is built with RCAR_RPC_HYPERFLASH_LOCKED=0. When unlocked, TF-A communicates this to subsequent software by passing a DT fragment that sets the "status" property of the RPC-IF device node to "okay". Unfortunately there are several issues preventing this from working all the way to Linux: 1. TF-A (and U-Boot on the receiving side) uses a device node name that does not conform to the DT specification nor the DT bindings for RPC-IF, 2. While U-Boot receives the RPC-IF enablement from TF-A, it does not propagate it to Linux yet, 3. The DTS files that are part of Linux do not have RPC HyperFlash support yet. This patch takes care of the first issue in TF-A. The related patches for U-Boot are [1]. Patches to enable RPC-IF support in Linux are available at [2]. Thanks for your comments! [1] "[PATCH u-boot 0/3] renesas: Fix RPC-IF enablement" https://lore.kernel.org/r/cover.1648544792.git.geert+renesas@glider.be [2] "[PATCH 0/5] arm64: dts: renesas: rcar-gen3: Enable HyperFlash support" https://lore.kernel.org/r/cover.1648548339.git.geert+renesas@glider.be --- plat/renesas/rcar/bl2_plat_setup.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/plat/renesas/rcar/bl2_plat_setup.c b/plat/renesas/rcar/bl2_plat_setup.c index bbfa16927d6c2384..f85db8d650c6b1a5 100644 --- a/plat/renesas/rcar/bl2_plat_setup.c +++ b/plat/renesas/rcar/bl2_plat_setup.c @@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ static void bl2_add_rpc_node(void) goto err; } - node = ret = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, node, "rpc@ee200000"); + node = ret = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, node, "spi@ee200000"); if (ret < 0) { goto err; } -- 2.25.1

1 year, 12 months

3
7
1 0

Adding Openssl3 build capability to TF-A

by Gyorgy Szing

Hi, As you may know, the build system was changed, and the tip of master depends on Openssl3. This version is quite new and is not available in many old (or not so old) but still supported operating systems. (Ubuntu 18.04 is an example.) I made a quick and dirty fix to allow building Opessl3 right from TF-A if the source is pre-fetched. You can find this change here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/16800 For our downstream project this is a perfect solution as the same component introducing the new dependency carries the solution. Thus, my build environment is not becoming TF-A version specific. From TF-A point of view the situation is not so simple. The above patch extends TF-A with "build environment provisioning" responsibility. Before this patch TF-A assumed, all "common" dependencies are available in the build environment, and this patch changes that. Yes, some strongly TF-A specific components were owned and built by TF-A, but openssl is different. Thus, my modification is a "game changer" in some ways. A few things to consider: * Openssl becomes a special kind of TPIP which the project will need to manage (e.g. look for security risks, version updates, compatibility to different OSs and OS versions, etc...). * This is a system wide component. There is a risk of breaking something the build uses. Hidden things like a python module depending on openssl and now picking up an incompatible version. * This change might be considered as layer bleeding since it "melds" responsibilities of the TF-A project and the "owner of the build environment". IMHO this might be a significant difference from supply-chain security perspectives. There are alternatives which might be considered better: * making the build system and host side tooling (e.g. cert_tool) backwards compatible with openssl2 * hosting pre-built static binaries somewhere, which would simplify build environment updates As I mentioned above, this is a "good enough" fix for my use-case, but not sure if this is the right approach from TF-A perspectives. I am happy to tidy up this patch and push it trough the review, but the efforts needed to implement "other options" are beyond my capacity. I am looking for feedback both from TF-A maintainers and from "build environment owners". Thanks! /George Ps.: Apologies for not doing "my homework". I know there is a ticket somewhere in Phabricator and I did not invest the needed time to find it.

2 years

2
2
0 0

Finally, a TF-A LTS Proposal!

by Okash Khawaja

TL;DR: Attached is the TF-A LTS proposal doc. Please review and share your thoughts. Hello everyone, Long term support for TF-A has a long history. As a community we have flirted with it for a while, and like any flirtation, it started with gossip -- in our case, over mailing list [1] -- more than two years ago. Then Varun Wadekar did a wonderful tech forum presentation [2] which demonstrated interest in the topic and raised interesting questions about LTS. After some time, the affair lost headline status, only to be revived again [3], earlier this year. This time however, there is a formal proposal (no pun intended). After the mailing list discussion and feedback from TF-A tech forum [4], we have put together a draft which attempts to give a concrete idea about what the TF-A LTS will look like. Please spare some time to read through it and share your feedback. The plan is to put LTS into action this November. Cheers! Okash [1] https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/archives/search?mlist=tf-a%40lists.truste… [2] https://www.trustedfirmware.org/docs/TF-A-LTS.pdf [3] https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/archives/list/tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.… [4] https://www.trustedfirmware.org/docs/TForg_LTS_proposal.pdf

2 years

5
7
0 0

New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware

by scan-admin＠coverity.com

Hi, Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan. 1 new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan. New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan Showing 1 of 1 defect(s) ** CID 370380: Code maintainability issues (UNUSED_VALUE) /plat/xilinx/versal/pm_service/pm_svc_main.c: 128 in pm_setup() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 370380: Code maintainability issues (UNUSED_VALUE) /plat/xilinx/versal/pm_service/pm_svc_main.c: 128 in pm_setup() 122 int32_t status, ret = 0; 123 124 status = pm_ipi_init(primary_proc); 125 126 if (status < 0) { 127 INFO("BL31: PM Service Init Failed, Error Code %d!\n", status); >>> CID 370380: Code maintainability issues (UNUSED_VALUE) >>> Assigning value from "status" to "ret" here, but that stored value is overwritten before it can be used. 128 ret = status; 129 } else { 130 pm_up = true; 131 } 132 133 /* ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P…

2 years

1
0
0 0

New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware

by scan-admin＠coverity.com

Hi, Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan. 1 new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan. 1 defect(s), reported by Coverity Scan earlier, were marked fixed in the recent build analyzed by Coverity Scan. New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan Showing 1 of 1 defect(s) ** CID 380957: Integer handling issues (NO_EFFECT) /drivers/arm/gic/v3/gicv3_main.c: 1109 in gicv3_raise_sgi() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 380957: Integer handling issues (NO_EFFECT) /drivers/arm/gic/v3/gicv3_main.c: 1109 in gicv3_raise_sgi() 1103 u_register_t target) 1104 { 1105 unsigned int tgt, aff3, aff2, aff1, aff0; 1106 uint64_t sgi_val; 1107 1108 /* Verify interrupt number is in the SGI range */ >>> CID 380957: Integer handling issues (NO_EFFECT) >>> This greater-than-or-equal-to-zero comparison of an unsigned value is always true. "sgi_num >= 0U". 1109 assert((sgi_num >= MIN_SGI_ID) && (sgi_num < MIN_PPI_ID)); 1110 1111 /* Extract affinity fields from target */ 1112 aff0 = MPIDR_AFFLVL0_VAL(target); 1113 aff1 = MPIDR_AFFLVL1_VAL(target); 1114 aff2 = MPIDR_AFFLVL2_VAL(target); ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P…

2 years

1
0
0 0

New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware

by scan-admin＠coverity.com

Hi, Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan. 4 new defect(s) introduced to ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware found with Coverity Scan. 1 defect(s), reported by Coverity Scan earlier, were marked fixed in the recent build analyzed by Coverity Scan. New defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan Showing 4 of 4 defect(s) ** CID 380859: Integer handling issues (BAD_SHIFT) /drivers/arm/gic/v3/gic600_multichip.c: 290 in gic700_multichip_validate_data() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 380859: Integer handling issues (BAD_SHIFT) /drivers/arm/gic/v3/gic600_multichip.c: 290 in gic700_multichip_validate_data() 284 } 285 multichip_spi_blocks |= blocks_of_32; 286 } 287 288 /* ESPI IDs overlap check */ 289 if (spi_id_max > GIC700_ESPI_ID_MIN) { >>> CID 380859: Integer handling issues (BAD_SHIFT) >>> In expression "1 << (spi_id_max - 4096U + 1U >> 5)", left shifting by more than 31 bits has undefined behavior. The shift amount, "spi_id_max - 4096U + 1U >> 5", is as much as 32. 290 blocks_of_32 = BLOCKS_OF_32(spi_id_min - GIC700_ESPI_ID_MIN, 291 spi_id_max - GIC700_ESPI_ID_MIN); 292 if ((multichip_espi_blocks & blocks_of_32) != 0) { 293 ERROR("SPI IDs of Chip %u overlapping\n", i); 294 panic(); 295 } ** CID 380858: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /drivers/nxp/crypto/caam/src/rng.c: 45 in is_hw_rng_instantiated() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 380858: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /drivers/nxp/crypto/caam/src/rng.c: 45 in is_hw_rng_instantiated() 39 40 /*Check if either of the two state handles has been instantiated */ 41 if (rdsta & RNG_STATE0_HANDLE_INSTANTIATED) { 42 *state_handle = 0; 43 ret_code = 1; 44 } else if (rdsta & RNG_STATE0_HANDLE_INSTANTIATED) { >>> CID 380858: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) >>> Execution cannot reach this statement: "*state_handle = 1U;". 45 *state_handle = 1; 46 ret_code = 1; 47 } 48 49 return ret_code; 50 } ** CID 380857: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /drivers/st/fmc/stm32_fmc2_nand.c: 284 in stm32_fmc2_nand_setup_timing() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 380857: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) /drivers/st/fmc/stm32_fmc2_nand.c: 284 in stm32_fmc2_nand_setup_timing() 278 if ((tset_mem < NAND_TADL_MIN) && 279 (thold_att < (NAND_TADL_MIN - tset_mem))) { 280 thold_att = NAND_TADL_MIN - tset_mem; 281 } 282 if ((tset_mem < NAND_TWH_MIN) && 283 (thold_att < (NAND_TWH_MIN - tset_mem))) { >>> CID 380857: Control flow issues (DEADCODE) >>> Execution cannot reach this statement: "thold_att = 30000UL - tset_...". 284 thold_att = NAND_TWH_MIN - tset_mem; 285 } 286 if ((tset_mem < NAND_TWHR_MIN) && 287 (thold_att < (NAND_TWHR_MIN - tset_mem))) { 288 thold_att = NAND_TWHR_MIN - tset_mem; 289 } ** CID 380856: Integer handling issues (BAD_SHIFT) /plat/intel/soc/common/drivers/qspi/cadence_qspi.c: 583 in cad_qspi_init() ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *** CID 380856: Integer handling issues (BAD_SHIFT) /plat/intel/soc/common/drivers/qspi/cadence_qspi.c: 583 in cad_qspi_init() 577 578 cap_code = CAD_QSPI_STIG_RDID_CAPACITYID(rdid); 579 580 if (!(((cap_code >> 4) > 0x9) || ((cap_code & 0xf) > 0x9))) { 581 uint32_t decoded_cap = ((cap_code >> 4) * 10) + 582 (cap_code & 0xf); >>> CID 380856: Integer handling issues (BAD_SHIFT) >>> In expression "1 << decoded_cap + 6U", left shifting by more than 31 bits has undefined behavior. The shift amount, "decoded_cap + 6U", is as much as 105. 583 qspi_device_size = 1 << (decoded_cap + 6); 584 INFO("QSPI Capacity: %x\n\n", qspi_device_size); 585 586 } else { 587 ERROR("Invalid CapacityID encountered: 0x%02x\n", 588 cap_code); ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ To view the defects in Coverity Scan visit, https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P…

2 years

1
0
0 0

Updated invitation with note: TF-A Tech Forum @ Thu Sep 22, 2022 4pm - 5pm (BST) (tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org)

by joanna.farley＠arm.com

This event has been updated with a note: "Firmer Agenda for 22md Sept session" Changed: description TF-A Tech Forum Thursday Sep 22, 2022 ⋅ 4pm – 5pm United Kingdom Time Agenda for Techforum session on Sept 22nd 2022Firmware update implementation in Total Compute (TC) Arm Reference Software Stack[1]:Brief overview of Firmware update mechanism as per the Firmware update specification [2]Implementation of FWU specification in Total ComputeDiscuss partner's view on this mechanismPresenter: Davidson Kumaresan and Manish Badarkhe[1] https://developer.arm.com/Tools%20and%20Software/Total%20C… run an open technical forum call for anyone to participate and it is not restricted to Trusted Firmware project members. It will operate under the guidance of the TF TSC. Feel free to forward this invite to colleagues. Invites are via the TF-A mailing list and also published on the Trusted Firmware website. Details are here: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-a-technical-forum/Tr… Firmware is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.Join Zoom Meetinghttps://zoom.us/j/9159704974Meeting ID: 915 970 4974One tap mobile+16465588656,,9159704974# US (New York)+16699009128,,9159704974# US (San Jose)Dial by your location        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)        877 853 5247 US Toll-free        888 788 0099 US Toll-freeMeeting ID: 915 970 4974Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad27hc6t7h   Guests marek.bykowski(a)gmail.com okash.khawaja(a)gmail.com tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Okash Khawaja santantonioswap(a)gmail.com don.harbin(a)linaro.org View all guest info https://calendar.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NWlub3Ewdm1tMmk1… Reply for tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org and view more details https://calendar.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NWlub3Ewdm1tMmk1… Your attendance is optional. ~~//~~ Invitation from Google Calendar: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/ You are receiving this email because you are an attendee on the event. To stop receiving future updates for this event, decline this event. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to send a response to the organizer, be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of their own invitation status, or modify your RSVP. Learn more https://support.google.com/calendar/answer/37135#forwarding

2 years

1
0
0 0

Issue with adding ssh key to review server

by sparlane＠gmail.com

Hi All, Sorry if this is the wrong list, I'm trying to submit a patch for tf-a and I'm currently unable to add an ssh key or generate an https password to use for authentication. Perhaps I am doing something wrong? I'm trying to use the settings here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/settings/#HTTPCredentials to add an ssh key and I get the error message "Error 500 (Server Error): Internal server error Endpoint: /accounts/self/sshkeys" Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Scott (sparlane)

2 years

2
2
0 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-A