- TF-A - lists.trustedfirmware.org

ATF currently does not use proper printf format specifiers for fixed width types

by Scott Branden

Hello, ATF currently uses non-portable printf format specifiers for fixed width types defined in stdint.h In addition, ATF redefines types defined in gcc for stdint.h with its own custom types causing additional issues. This causes compilation issues when porting code to/from ATF. AND, generates coverity parse errors as int64_t and uint64_t are incorrectly defined in ATF vs. gcc for aarch64. The printf format specifiers in inttypes.h are to be used for the proper format specifiers. And, uint64_t/int64_t should be defined the same as in gcc. I tried fixing up all the instances of int64 printf format specifiers by introducing inttypes.h and redefined the stdint types correctly here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/5437 We have checked the change into our local tree so that everything compiles and runs in our system. Please accept change upstream. Regards, Scott

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] ATF LTS version

by François Ozog

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 23:42, Varun Wadekar via TF-A < tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > Hello Matteo, > > Apologies for still using an outdated term. I have trained myself to get > used to "TF-A" - looks like I am still not there. > > >> The idea has also been just raised to the Trusted Firmware project > Board for initial consideration and we will be all very keen to understand > how much interest there is from the wider TF-A community of adopters and > external (non-Arm) maintainers > > That is good to hear. For the exact scope, I think we can assume the usual > expectations from any LTS software stack - stability, performance, > security, bug fixes along with maintenance support. We are open to > discussing the cadence and any other operational commitments. > > @Francois, from the description of Trusted Substrate looks like you also > expect the sub-projects to provide LTS versions for the project as a whole > to succeed (?) > > Yes. I assume relevant tf.org projects decide to branch LTSes so that we can extend the scope to selected OP-TEE TAs for the Trusted Substrate LTS and may be extend duration of support for the tf.org LTSes. (just to make sure: this is just early open thinking to understand what it would mean to build such a service on the Linaro side should there be tf.org LTSes). -Varun > > > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Matteo > Carlini via TF-A > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 4:25 AM > To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Subject: Re: [TF-A] ATF LTS version > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > Hi Francois, > > > I'd be happy to know more about what you see as TFA LTS: exact scope, > number of versions, duration, operational commitments (zero-day...). > > Do you have other firmware LTS needs? > > Agree. That’s precisely what I was hinting to Varun, when mentioning > concrete requirements for the LTS scheme. > > > Trusted Substrate is the aggregation of { TFA, OP-TEE, some TEE apps > such as firmwareTPM, U-Boot }. > > Trusted Substrate effort is led by Linaro members and is going to be set > up as a more open project. > > First time I heard about it. Good to know, but I guess we'll need to > discuss the intersection and collaboration with the Trusted Firmware > project at some point. > Having a LTS versioning scheme for the Trusted Firmware hosted projects > should be theoretically either in the scope of the Project itself or, if > the Board agrees, appointed to some other project/entity. > > > Our end goal is to enable unified, transactional, robust (anti-bricking, > anti rollback) UEFI OTA on both U-Boot and EDK2. > > Fair, but IMHO this has little to do with Arm Secure world software LTS > releases (TF-A/Hafnium/OP-TEE/TAs, TF-M)...probably best to discuss aside, > this is not in scope of what Varun is raising. > > Thanks > Matteo > > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > -- François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog

5 years, 2 months

2
2
0 0

Test message please ignore

by Bill Fletcher

.

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

TF-A Tech Forum Agenda @ Thr 10th September 2020 16:00-1700 BST

by Joanna Farley

Hi All, The next TF-A Tech Forum is scheduled for Thu 10th September 2020 16:00 – 17:00 (BST). A reoccurring meeting invite has been sent out to the subscribers of this TF-A mailing list. If you don’t have this please let me know. Agenda: * Proposal for a LTS (Long Term Support) Release Option for TF-A * Presented by Varun Wadekar * Long-term support is a lifecycle management policy in which a stable release is maintained for a period of time * Optional TF-A Mailing List Topic Discussions If TF-A contributors have anything they wish to present at any future TF-A tech forum please contact me to have that scheduled. Previous sessions, both recording and presentation material can be found on the trustedfirmware.org TF-A Technical meeting webpage: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-a-technical-forum/ A scheduling tracking page is also available to help track sessions suggested and being prepared: https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/tf_a/tf-a-tech-forum-scheduling/ Final decisions on what will be presented will be shared a few days before the next meeting and shared on the TF-A mailing list. Thanks Joanna

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction

by Olivier Deprez

Hi again, After further check, it looks gcc 9.2 already supports the appropriate option. Maybe you missed ARM_ARCH_MINOR on the build command line depending on whether you need PAuth (Armv8.3) and/or BTI (Armv8.5). BRANCH_PROTECTION=2 or 3 => need ARM_ARCH_MINOR=3 (at least) BRANCH_PROTECTION=1 or 4 => need ARM_ARCH_MINOR=5 Regards, Olivier. ________________________________________ From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Olivier Deprez via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 03 September 2020 09:47 To: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Varun Wadekar Subject: Re: [TF-A] GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction Hi Kalyani, According to https://trustedfirmware-a.readthedocs.io/en/latest/getting_started/build-op… you need a compiler supporting the -mbranch-protection option. This seems to be the case from gcc 9.3 onwards: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/AArch64-Options.html#AArch64-O… Notice a GCC10.2 cross-compiler release is planned by end of this year according to this page: https://community.arm.com/developer/tools-software/tools/b/tools-software-i… Regards, Olivier. ________________________________________ From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Varun Wadekar via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 03 September 2020 04:08 To: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-A] GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction <Dummy response to get the email through to the mailing list> From: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan <kalyanic(a)nvidia.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 3:43 PM To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar(a)nvidia.com> Subject: GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction Hi, We are using gcc-arm-9.2 toolchain and see that this is not supporting the “xpaci” instruction. Is there any compiler flag that has to be included to support this? Reference code that uses “xpaci” when PAUTH is enabled - https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/bl31/aarch… Thanks, Kalyani -- TF-A mailing list TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction

by Olivier Deprez

Hi Kalyani, According to https://trustedfirmware-a.readthedocs.io/en/latest/getting_started/build-op… you need a compiler supporting the -mbranch-protection option. This seems to be the case from gcc 9.3 onwards: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/AArch64-Options.html#AArch64-O… Notice a GCC10.2 cross-compiler release is planned by end of this year according to this page: https://community.arm.com/developer/tools-software/tools/b/tools-software-i… Regards, Olivier. ________________________________________ From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Varun Wadekar via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Sent: 03 September 2020 04:08 To: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-A] GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction <Dummy response to get the email through to the mailing list> From: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan <kalyanic(a)nvidia.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 3:43 PM To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar(a)nvidia.com> Subject: GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction Hi, We are using gcc-arm-9.2 toolchain and see that this is not supporting the “xpaci” instruction. Is there any compiler flag that has to be included to support this? Reference code that uses “xpaci” when PAUTH is enabled - https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/bl31/aarch… Thanks, Kalyani

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-A] GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction

by Varun Wadekar

<Dummy response to get the email through to the mailing list> From: Kalyani Chidambaram Vaidyanathan <kalyanic(a)nvidia.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 3:43 PM To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: Varun Wadekar <vwadekar(a)nvidia.com> Subject: GCC compiler option to support "xpaci" instruction Hi, We are using gcc-arm-9.2 toolchain and see that this is not supporting the "xpaci" instruction. Is there any compiler flag that has to be included to support this? Reference code that uses "xpaci" when PAUTH is enabled - https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/master/bl31/aarch… Thanks, Kalyani

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

List of issues with Cactus as SPMC on pre-8.4 CPUs

by Varun Wadekar

Hi @Olivier<mailto:Olivier.Deprez@arm.com>, We have been trying to use Cactus as SPMC on Tegra194 (pre 8.4) platforms and have faced the following issues. 1. Cactus_main.c - During cold boot, Cactus checks if the ffa-id for the instance of Cactus == SPM_VM_ID_FIRST. It issues FFA_ID_GET SMC to TF-A which returns the spmc_id in return. But on pre-8.4 platforms the value does not match SPM_VM_ID_FIRST and so the system assumes that the device is running on a post-8.4 CPU. The problem is that TF-A returns the spmc_id for this SMC, which seems incorrect. I don't understand why Cactus needs to know its own VM_ID on pre-8.4 CPUs. Can we assume that only one SPMC can run on pre-8.4? 2. Cactus_ffa_tests.c - The ` ffa_partition_info_get_test` incorrectly queries the partition info for secondary and tertiary VMs on pre-8.4 CPUs. 3. In general the boot tests that execute within Cactus seem incorrect to me. Some tests expect the presence of a non-secure world payload, which is not available at this point in the boot. This leads to numerous crashes and asserts during boot. 4. Cactus incorrectly uses a hard-coded address 0x7300000 as the RX/TX memory base. It should be using a platform defined value instead. We do not support this memory address on Tegra194. 5. The debug UART in Cactus needs rework too. Right now, it only supports PL011 as the UART driver. 6. TF-A SPMD forwards some SMCs to the non-secure world without checking if a non-secure world payload exists. This causes crashes during cold boot. Please let me know if you have commits for any or all of these issues. We have some WIP commits that we can push to gerrit for review, if required. Thoughts? -Varun

5 years, 2 months

2
2
0 0

question about tf-a spec

by chen feng

Hello arm expects, While reading the tf-a spec about the section "3.5.1 Register state". It described that "The MMU must be disabled for a partition that does not run in S-EL0". Does this mean that the S-EL1 SP need to create their own page table and enable the MMU itself. I wonder in this way, it is not very friendly to a SP developer. Since the SP can be a verify simple binary, maybe a single driver which can benefited from the isolation from other partitions. So in the pointer of developing a single driver. I think it do not need to care about the MMU configuration. It will be more friendly to be as easy as developing a user-land binary. The SPMC(SEL2) can do this configure for the SEL1's page-tables and enable MMU for SEL1 before jump into the SP. So I want to discuss here to understand the meaning behind it. Cheers, Feng

5 years, 2 months

3
8
0 0

Re: [TF-A] [query] sbsa level 3 spec: non secure watchdog WS1 handling at EL3

by Sandeep Tripathy

Hi Dan, On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:31 PM Dan Handley via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > Hi Sandeep > > > > Arm development platforms that have an SBSA secure watchdog like N1SDP do not register an interrupt handler for the WS0 signal. They simply wait for the WS1 signal, which is fed to a higher agent (in this case the System Control Processor), which resets the platform. > There is no explicit watchdog interrupt handling functionality in TF-A. > what happens to non secure sbsa WS1 ? That is the case for Secure sbsa WS1. NS WS0 ----> EL1 X (optional) but linux already implements it . NS WS1 ----> EL3 X TF-A Do not handle it. Hence the patch. Not handling it altogether is not an option I guess. S WS0 -------> EL3 X (optional) . Platform might want to log this condition. S WS1 ----------------------------------------> handled by a higher agent. > > > If your platform does not have a higher agent that handles WS1 then I guess you could add a handler in TF-A as you suggest in your code snippet, though I'm not sure if the maintainers would want this in generic SBSA code. Also, I don't see why you need both callback(s) and the explicit call to psci_systrem_reset2(), when presumably the callback(s) would do the latter. > Platform callback can optionally do more things like some logging. Ultimately 'system_reset2' seems to be the thing everyone would like to do as part of action. Then to reduce duplicate code we can have at one place. > > > > Q1- What happens if core is stuck and interrupts are not taken. > > It's rare for EL3 interrupts not to be taken when the core is stuck, unless an EL3 exception handler itself is stuck, in which case I'm not sure there's much you can do. That's why it's good to have a higher agent. > The rare lockup of core where it's not able to respond (not the software ones) requires some other agent to detect and reset/recover the system. Linux watchdog (ns sbsa WS1) will go unnoticed in such cases. ie. even if the watchdog hardware detected the lockup and indicated by WS0 then WS1 .. both were not acted upon. If it were the secure watchdog then no issues. > > > > Or it has to be registered as a RAS priority exception. > > I don't think that would help, unless the system was flooded with higher priority exceptions that prevented the watchdog handler from running. > > > > Regards > > > Dan. > > > > From: TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Sandeep Tripathy via TF-A > Sent: 27 August 2020 12:14 > To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Subject: [TF-A] [query] sbsa level 3 spec: non secure watchdog WS1 handling at EL3 > > > > Hi, > > Based on sbsa spec for level-3 firmware specification watchdog signals NS WS1 and S WS0 to be handled at EL3 firmware. > > I have some query on how TF-A plans to implement this. > > > > Ref: Excerpt DEN0029D_SBSA_6.0 https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0029/d/?lang=en > > 3.2.3 Watchdogs The required behavior of watchdog signal 1 of the Non-secure watchdog is modified in level 3– firmware and is required to be routed as an SPI to the GIC. It is expected that this SPI be configured as an EL3 interrupt, directly targeting a single PE. A system compatible with level 3- firmware must implement a second watchdog, and is referred to as the Secure watchdog. It must have both its register frames mapped in the Secure memory address space and must not be aliased to the Non-secure address space. Watchdog Signal 0 of the Secure watchdog must be routed as an SPI to the GIC and it is expected this will be configured as an EL3 interrupt, directly targeting a single PE. > > > > Q1- What happens if core is stuck and interrupts are not taken. Non-secure watchdog will expire and ultimately results in a WS1 which is also not taken as the core is not responding. > > If WS1 were to another subsystem (eg: SCP) then it would take action. > > In current scheme is it the secure sbsa wdg expected to detect such hang ? > > > > Q2- How to handle sbsa watchdog interrupt at EL3. Please suggest if I should make a patch in following approach to start with. Or it has to be registered as a RAS priority exception. > > > > diff --git a/drivers/arm/sbsa/sbsa.c b/drivers/arm/sbsa/sbsa.c > > index 79c6f26..9683ef8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/arm/sbsa/sbsa.c > > +++ b/drivers/arm/sbsa/sbsa.c > > @@ -40,3 +40,26 @@ > > + > > +#define weak plat_sbsa_nt_wdog_ws1_handle > > +#define weak plat_sbsa_t_wdog_ws0_handle > > +void sbsa_wdog_handler(int id) > > +{ > > + if (id == SBSA_NT_WDG_WS1_INT) { > > + /* PUBLISH_EVENT */ > > + plat_sbsa_nt_wdog_ws1_handle(); > > + } else if (id == SBSA_T_WDG_WS0_INT) { > > + /* PUBLISH_EVENT */ > > + plat_sbsa_t_wdog_ws0_handle(); > > + } > > + /* EOI and reset , log what else */ > > + psci_systrem_reset2(); > > +} > > + > > +void sbsa_wdog_hander_init(void) > > +{ > > +#if EXCEPTION_HANDLING_FRAMEWORK > > + ehf_register_priority_handler(SBSA_WDG_PRI, sbsa_wdog_handler); > > +#endif > > +} > > > > Thanks > > Sandeep > > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a Thanks Sandeep

5 years, 2 months

2
1
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-A