Re: [TF-A] Need input on Errata implementation

Hi Raghu,

Please see my replies inline.

Thanks Manish Badarkhe

On 04/05/2020, 21:42, "Raghu K" raghu.ncstate@icloud.com wrote:

Thanks Soby. This makes things clearer.

>>The benefit of this skip may not justify the additional lookup and complexity needed to pull in the cpu_ops >>framework for the runtime check

[RK]Agree. I was thinking along the lines of having the CPU reset function set a per-cpu or global flag that tells the runtime function whether or not the errata needs to be applied. At runtime, you unconditionally call the errata apply function from context save/restore(when the compile time flag is enabled) and the cpu_ops function can decide based on the flag whether or not the errata needs to be applied. This seems simple(no look ups required other than during cpu reset) although we may not know for sure until it is implemented that way. Anyway, i'll wait for Manish's solution.

As of now we are thinking to push the patch with compile time option which is default disabled (as phase I) and then will work on design and implementation of runtime check as phase II which will help to cover such kind of erratum cases.

>>So for a simple EL1/EL2 SMC call into EL3 and return, this errata will not apply

[RK] Thanks for clarifying. I did not get this from looking at the errata document. I took a closer look at the kvm patches and it does agree with your assessment. For TF-A, you probably don't require the work around during context save since all we are doing is reading registers and saving them off and there cannot be any inconsistent state. Context-restore is the window during which you can have inconsistent register state at which time you can apply the workaround. Is there a reason to do it during context-save as well(other than it being clean/symmetrical with context-restore)?

Yes, we need to put this workaround only during restore.

Thanks Raghu

On 5/4/20 7:38 AM, Soby Mathew wrote: > Hi Raghu > There would always be a build option that would disable this workaround. The runtime check based on MIDR would be an add-on on top of that. So for big-Little systems, if any one of the CPU is affected, the platform would enable the workaround. The runtime check could potentially skip the unaffected CPU in the system. The benefit of this skip may not justify the additional lookup and complexity needed to pull in the cpu_ops framework for the runtime check. Manish is doing some thinking in this direction. > > For the unaffected platform, this runtime check wouldn't matter as the build option to enable the workaround would be disabled. > > This is what we currently understand, the errata only happens during a context switch for the out of context translation regime. So for a simple EL1/EL2 SMC call into EL3 and return, this errata will not apply as the EL2/EL1 context is not changed. The TLB caching due to speculation in EL3 should not really matter as the lower EL context on return will be same as on entry. > > The context switch happens for a NS ->EL3 -> S-EL1 SMC call. Hence the reasoning behind adding it to context save and restore sequence as this is only invoked for such a switch. > > This is as per my understanding of the problem. > > Best Regards > Soby Mathew > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Raghu K raghu.ncstate@icloud.com >> Sent: 01 May 2020 19:22 >> To: Soby Mathew Soby.Mathew@arm.com; Manish Badarkhe >> Manish.Badarkhe@arm.com >> Cc: tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org >> Subject: Re: [TF-A] Need input on Errata implementation >> >> Thanks Soby. If the fix involves looping through a list of CPU's, the approach >> may be fine. I missed the case where you could have multiple CPU MIDR's on >> the same SoC(big.little's???). The ideal solution would be SoC's with CPU's >> *without* this errata have zero penalty(no checking for the errata, perhaps by >> being compiled out), and for SoC's that contain CPU's with the errata have a >> fairly quick check or an always compiled in errata fix. A combination of >> platform specific compile time flags and/or per-cpu variables or global >> variables should be able to achieve this. >> >> Also do you have any insights on if the workaround needs to be applied in the >> scenario i mentioned below(simple SMC call without any call to context >> save/restore)? I'm trying to understand why the errata applies only if we hit >> the context-save/restore path. >> >> -Raghu >> >> On 5/1/20 7:02 AM, Soby Mathew wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: TF-A tf-a-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org On Behalf Of >>>> Raghu Krishnamurthy via TF-A >>>> Sent: 30 April 2020 02:33 >>>> To: Manish Badarkhe Manish.Badarkhe@arm.com; tf- >>>> a@lists.trustedfirmware.org >>>> Cc: nd nd@arm.com >>>> Subject: Re: [TF-A] Need input on Errata implementation >>>> >>>> Hi Manish, >>>> >>>> Really appreciate you for taking time to respond to my concerns/questions. >>>> >>>> What about this situation? NS-EL2 makes an SMC call to EL3 to get >>>> some basic information like GET_SOC_INFORMATION. This is a simple SMC >>>> and there is no call to context save or context restore. During the >>>> SMC call, if there is a speculative AT instruction on a lower EL(say >>>> NS-EL2), there could be a bad cached translation. Do you not need to >>>> apply the errata in this situation ? If not, why? >>>> >>>> >>We can't simply apply this errata on reset and just leave the system. >>>> >>>> [RK]Totally agree. See CPU_E_HANDLER_FUNC. It is not necessary that >>>> cpu_ops are only called during reset and power down. >>>> CPU_E_HANDLER_FUNC is called at runtime due EA's. >>>> >>>> >>We thought of taking different approach for this errata >>>> implementation >>where anybody disable this workaround using macro as >>>> this errata is >>applicable for most of the CPUs (by default enabled) >>>> and can't be >>placed in cpu_ops. >>>> >>>> [RK]This is a poor approach in my view. Most CPU's is not all CPU's. >>>> The reason the errata framework exists is to apply CPU specific >>>> erratas by checking for them dynamically. Different stepping's of the >>>> same CPU's may or may not have the errata and typically you check the >>>> MIDR to know if the errata applies or not. Linux does not apply the >>>> errata to all CPU's since "most" CPU's have the issue. They check for >>>> its existence at runtime and only then apply it. TF-A should not hold itself to >> a lower standard. >>> Hi Raghu >>> I guess this depends on what the errata workaround involves. Since this >> workaround applies bit setting on an out of context register, it was not >> expected to affect the EL3 execution performance (or the lower level EL >> because the bits are restored on return). Also it was thought that the act of >> searching through the list of compiled CPUs and checking if the workaround is >> applicable might be more detrimental than the unilateral application of the >> workaround for this case (assuming no extra barriers are added since the code >> path it is inserted in have them already later in the sequence). >>> But I agree it is more elegant to have this coupled into CPU_OPS framework. I >> think Manish has some ideas for this. >>> Best Regards >>> Soby Mathew >>> >>>> -Raghu >>>> >>>> On 4/29/20 1:35 AM, Manish Badarkhe wrote: >>>>> Hi Raghu >>>>> >>>>> Just to add/correct one more thing from my previous emails that >>>>> this errata >>>> workaround proposed is >>>>> applied to both normal and secure world switches to EL3. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Manish Badarkhe >>>>> >>>>> On 29/04/2020, 12:25, "TF-A on behalf of Manish Badarkhe via TF-A" >>>>> <tf-a- >>>> bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of >>>> tf-a@lists.trustedfirmware.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Raghu >>>>> >>>>> On 29/04/2020, 02:00, "Raghu K" raghu.ncstate@icloud.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Manish, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >> we don’t have any AT instances in minimum execution >>>>> window after >>>> context switching from S-EL(1/2) >>>>> >> to EL3 and before updating TCR register. >>>>> >>>>> 1) What is the minimum execution window? Does that not >>>>> change based >>>> on micro-architecture? >>>>> Not sure about exact minimum execution window. IMO, it really >>>>> depend >>>> upon when "context_save" gets called after >>>>> entering into EL3 from S-EL1/2. It may changed upon micro-architecture. >>>> Need some experts comment here. >>>>> 2) Do we know that the "execution window" is exactly the >>>>> same for all >>>> the CPU's this errata applies to? >>>>> It may be but we should not worry on that if we don’t have any >>>>> AT >>>> instruction execution in that window. >>>>> Also, it appears we are only talking about switching from S-EL1/2 to >> EL3. >>>> The same issue can happen when you go from NS-EL1/EL2 to EL3 as well. >>>> There also seems to be an assumption in the patch you submitted that >>>> this errata happens only during a so called context-switch. From my >>>> reading, the cortex- Ax errata notices don't limit the errata to occur only >> during "context-switches" >>>> in the "conditions" section and can occur while executing ANY code, >>>> although the work around section does muddy the waters a bit. >>>>> In Linux, at NS-EL2 this workaround is already in place. Hence >>>>> we just >>>> thought of considering cases from Secure EL side to put this workaround. >>>>> Yes, errata should not limit to particular conditional section >>>>> but this >>>> particular errata is not straight-forward like another errata placed >>>> in the code currently. We can't simply apply this errata on reset and just >> leave the system. >>>>> Back to problem, AT instruction speculative execution using >>>>> out-of- >>>> context regime that results in page table walk and generate the >>>> incorrect >>>>> translation which are cached in TLB. To avoid this issue we >>>>> thought of >>>> disabling PTW for that particular EL. >>>>> for e.g. If AT instruction execution for EL1 present in EL3 >>>>> then we have to >>>> make sure speculative behaviour of this AT should not result in >>>> incorrect translation cached in TLB. If system is always in EL3 (if >>>> we loop-in in EL3 always without going back and forth to/from lower >>>> EL) then in that case >>>>> there is no need of this workaround. >>>>> Hence we thought to put this workaround over boundary context >>>>> of >>>> context switches. When "context save" (close to EL3 entry) happened >>>> we meticulously save all EL system registers (S-EL1/S-EL2) with PTW >>>> disabled and continue EL3 execution with PTW disabled ensuring we >>>> should not cache any incorrect translation for (S-EL1/S-EL2) and >>>> during "context restore" (i.e. close to EL3 exit) again we disabled >>>> PTW, restore all system registers for EL (S-EL1/S- >>>> EL2) except TCR and then restore TCR. >>>>> 3) Has there been any work done to actually reproduce this >>>>> issue and >>>> also to see that this actually fixes the issue? >>>>> No this issue is hard to reproduce. >>>>> >>>>> 4) Has the CPU errata framework(cpu_ops etc.) been >>>>> considered to >>>> possibly implement the errata? Sprinkling erratas through common >>>> framework code does not seem like a good idea. >>>>> We thought of taking different approach for this errata >>>>> implementation >>>> where anybody disable this workaround using macro as this errata is >>>> applicable for most of the CPUs (by default enabled) and can't be >>>> placed in cpu_ops. >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Raghu >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Manish Badarkhe >>>>> >>>>> On 4/28/20 1:44 AM, Manish Badarkhe wrote: >>>>> > Hi Raghu >>>>> > >>>>> > Please see my replies inline. >>>>> > >>>>> > Regards >>>>> > Manish Badarkhe >>>>> > >>>>> > On 28/04/2020, 11:29, "Raghu Krishnamurthy" >>>> raghu.ncstate@icloud.com wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi Manish, >>>>> > >>>>> > Understood. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>Hence before entering in EL3, we ensured that PTW is >> disabled >>>> (at >>>>> > context save) >>>>> > >>>>> > The context save and restore functions are executed in EL3. So >> how >>>> are >>>>> > you disabling PTW before entering EL3 ? >>>>> > >>>>> > Yes, I put it wrongly. We thought "context_save/restore" >>>>> is best place >>>> to disable PTW without much affecting the >>>>> > code because we don’t have any AT instances in minimum >>>>> execution >>>> window after context switching from S-EL(1/2) >>>>> > to EL3 and before updating TCR register. >>>>> > >>>>> > -Raghu >>>>> > >>>>> > Thanks >>>>> > Manish Badarkhe >>>>> > >>>>> > On 4/27/20 10:53 PM, Manish Badarkhe wrote: >>>>> > > Hi Raghu >>>>> > > >>>>> > > This workaround is specifically need for speculative AT >> instruction >>>> behaviour in out of context regime. >>>>> > > That means executing AT instruction for lower ELs (S-EL1/S-EL2) >> in >>>> higher EL i.e. EL3. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Behaviour of AT instruction is unaltered when it get executed >> in >>>> same regime (when AT instruction executed for same EL >>>>> > > where it is executing) and there is no possibility to execute AT >>>> instruction for higher EL in lower EL. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Hence before entering in EL3, we ensured that PTW is disabled >> (at >>>> context save) and restore PTW back during >>>>> > > exit of EL3. (at context restore). >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Thanks >>>>> > > Manish Badarkhe >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On 28/04/2020, 01:23, "Raghu K" raghu.ncstate@icloud.com >>>> wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Hi Manish, >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>Hence proposed solution will work as it is >>>>> > > >>>>> > > [RK]If you are sure go ahead. I'm not convinced, but that may >>>> be because >>>>> > > i don't understand the errata fully/correctly. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>This workaround is very specific during context switching >>>>> > > >>>>> > > [RK] Context switching has many meanings depending on the >>>> context(OS, >>>>> > > hypervisor, TF-A world switch etc). The errata document i >> saw >>>> does not >>>>> > > elaborate on this. Perhaps clarifying this will help >> understand >>>> why the >>>>> > > solution you proposed will work. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > The solution below in points 2 and 3 have the same problem >> on >>>> entry and >>>>> > > exit, mentioned in my first email. Before you call >>>>> > > el1_sysregs_context_save, an AT instruction could have >>>> speculatively >>>>> > > executed through speculation of branches that occur >> BEFORE >>>> you call this >>>>> > > function, when TCR still has the enable bit set. The fact that >> you >>>> don't >>>>> > > have an AT instruction in the context save routine or any >>>> routine for >>>>> > > that matter, does not guarantee that the hardware did not >>>> speculate >>>>> > > through some other means to reach an AT instruction. The >>>> same applies to >>>>> > > the context_restore routines. There is no guarantee right >> after >>>> you >>>>> > > finish the restore routing(and hence TCR has the enable bit >> set), >>>> that >>>>> > > the CPU cannot speculate to an AT instruction. >>>>> > > So i'm not clear how you can say for certain that there was >> no >>>>> > > speculative AT instruction with the proposal below. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > Thanks >>>>> > > Raghu >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On 4/27/20 10:08 AM, Manish Badarkhe wrote: >>>>> > > > Hi All, >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Just update/correct details. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Thanks >>>>> > > > Manish Badarkhe >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > On 27/04/2020, 22:13, "TF-A on behalf of Manish Badarkhe >>>> via TF-A" <tf-a-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of tf- >>>> a@lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Hi Raghu >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Please ignore my answer on question 2. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > With internal discussion came to below conclusion: >>>>> > > > 1. This workaround is very specific during context >>>> switching. >>>>> > > > 2 . If you check in context save routine >>>> (el1_sysregs_context_save or el2_sysregs_context_save), >>>>> > > > As per proposed solution, First step performed is to >>>> disable page table walk and we don’t have >>>>> > > > any AT instruction execution in context save routine. >>>>> > > > This ensures that there will be no possibility of >>>> speculative AT instruction execution without TCR update. >>>>> > > > 3. If you check in context restore routine >>>> (el1_sysregs_context_restore or el2_sysregs_context_restore), >>>>> > > > As per proposed solution, first step performed is to >>>> disable page table walk and we don’t have any >>>>> > > > AT instruction execution in context restore routine. >>>>> > > > This ensures that there will be no possibility of >>>> speculative AT instruction execution without TCR update. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Hence proposed solution will work as it is ensuring no >>>> caching of translations in TLB while speculative AT instruction execution. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Thanks >>>>> > > > Manish Badarkhe >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > On 27/04/2020, 13:38, "TF-A on behalf of Manish >> Badarkhe >>>> via TF-A" <tf-a-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of tf- >>>> a@lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Hi Raghu >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Please see my answers inline >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > On 25/04/2020, 06:38, "TF-A on behalf of Raghu K via >> TF- >>>> A" <tf-a-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org on behalf of tf- >>>> a@lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Hi Manish, >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Before I agree or disagree with the suggested fix, the >>>> following would >>>>> > > > be interesting to know/discuss. Please feel free to >>>> correct me if i've >>>>> > > > misunderstood something. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > 1) Are "speculative" AT instructions subject to >> TCR_ELx >>>> control bits for >>>>> > > > all the listed CPU's? I imagine the answer is yes but >>>> would be good to >>>>> > > > get confirmation. I could not find any evidence in >> the >>>> instruction >>>>> > > > description or psuedocode in the ARMv8 ARM. It is >>>> possible to play many >>>>> > > > tricks on speculative execution of instructions such >> as >>>> skipping checks >>>>> > > > and doing them only when the CPU knows the >>>> instruction will be >>>>> > > > committed. If this is the case, changing TCR_ELx bits >>>> may not work. The >>>>> > > > errata document is vague about how to fix it. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > The speculative AT instruction may behave as you >>>> mentioned. We need more >>>>> > > > opinion on this. >>>>> > > > Proposed fix I mentioned by referring linux >> workaround >>>> for the same errata. >>>>> > > > Linux workaround is available in mainline kernel as >>>> below: >>>>> > > > >>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/co >>>> mmit/?h= v5.7-rc3&id=bd227553ad5077f21ddb382dcd910ba46181805a >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > 2) Assuming the answer to question 1 is yes, your >>>> proposal may not work >>>>> > > > as is. In the worst case, as soon as you enter EL3, the >>>> very first thing >>>>> > > > that may happen, before you ever operate/write to >>>> TCR_ELx, is a >>>>> > > > speculative AT instruction that caches a bad >> translation >>>> in the TLB's. >>>>> > > > The same thing can happen on the exit path. As >> soon as >>>> you restore the >>>>> > > > TCR_ELx register, the first thing that can happen is a >>>> speculative AT >>>>> > > > that caches a bad translation. However, the el3_exit >>>> path does have DSB >>>>> > > > before ERET, so we will not speculate to an AT >>>> instruction if there are >>>>> > > > no branches between the instruction that sets >> TCR_ELx >>>> and the ERET. >>>>> > > > Somewhere in between, it looks like we will need a >>>> TLBI NSH to be >>>>> > > > certain there are no bad translation cached. This >>>> obviously has a >>>>> > > > potential performance cost on the lower EL's. Every >>>> entry into EL3 >>>>> > > > flushes the TLB for lower EL's. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Yes, this seems to be valid case during entry and exit >> path. >>>>> > > > I am not quite sure in that case where we need to >> avoid >>>> PTW. >>>>> > > > Also "TLBI NSH" works but it may cause performance >>>> issue. >>>>> > > > Need some more opinion/thoughts on this. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Just thinking, can sequence mentioned for context >> save >>>> does not ensure that >>>>> > > > PTW is disabled? >>>>> > > > Something as below as last step in ELx(1/2) context >> save >>>> (elaborated more): >>>>> > > > > ·Save TCR register with PTW enable (EPD=0). (Just >> to >>>> enable PTW during >>>>> > > > > restore context). Do not operate TCR_EL1x register >>>> here just save its value to restore. >>>>> > > > > This ensures that during entry in EL3 there will be >> no >>>> chance of PTW >>>>> > > > >. while executing AT instruction. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Thanks >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Raghu >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Thanks >>>>> > > > Manish Badarkhe >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > On 4/24/20 2:56 AM, Manish Badarkhe via TF-A >> wrote: >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Hi All >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > We are trying to implement errata which is >> applicable >>>> for below CPUs: >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > <CPUs> : <Errata No.> >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Cortex-A53: 1530924 >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Cortex-A76: 1165522 >>>>> > > > > Cortex-A72: 1319367 >>>>> > > > > Cortex-A57: 1319537 >>>>> > > > > Cortex-A55: 1530923 >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > *Errata Description:* >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > A speculative Address Translation (AT) instruction >>>> translates using >>>>> > > > > registers that are associated with an out-of- >> context >>>> translation >>>>> > > > > regime and caches the resulting translation in the >> TLB. >>>> A subsequent >>>>> > > > > translation request that is generated when the >> out- >>>> of-context >>>>> > > > > translation regime is current uses the previous >> cached >>>> TLB entry >>>>> > > > > producing an incorrect virtual to physical mapping. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > *Probable solution is to implement below fix in >>>> context.S file:* >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > *During ELx (1 or 2) context save:* >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > ·Operate TCR_ELx(1/2) to disable page table walk >> by >>>> operating EPD bits >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > oThis will avoid any page table walk for S-EL1 or S- >> EL2. >>>> This will >>>>> > > > > help in avoiding caching of translations in TLB >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > for S-EL1/S-EL2 in EL3. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > ·Save all system registers (which is already >> available) >>>> except TCR >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > ·Clear EPD bits of TCR and then save. (Just to >> enable >>>> PTW during >>>>> > > > > restore context). >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > *During ELx (1 or 2) context restore:* >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > * Operate TCR_ELx(1/2) to disable page table >> walk >>>> by operating EPD bits >>>>> > > > > * Restore all system registers (which are saved >>>> during context save) >>>>> > > > > except TCR register. >>>>> > > > > * Restore TCR_ELx(1/2) register (which enable >> back >>>> PTW). >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > With above we ensured that there will be no page >>>> table walk for S-EL1 >>>>> > > > > and S-EL2 in EL3. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > is this proper other way to fix this problem? Need >>>> some suggestion/use >>>>> > > > > cases where and all we need this workaround in >> TF-A >>>> code. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Thanks >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Manish Badarkhe >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email >> and >>>> any attachments are >>>>> > > > > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are >> not >>>> the intended >>>>> > > > > recipient, please notify the sender immediately >> and >>>> do not disclose >>>>> > > > > the contents to any other person, use it for any >>>> purpose, or store or >>>>> > > > > copy the information in any medium. Thank you. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > -- >>>>> > > > TF-A mailing list >>>>> > > > TF-A@lists.trustedfirmware.org >>>>> > > > >> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and >> any >>>> attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are >>>> not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and >>>> do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any >>>> purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. >>>>> > > > -- >>>>> > > > TF-A mailing list >>>>> > > > TF-A@lists.trustedfirmware.org >>>>> > > > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any >>>> attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are >>>> not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and >>>> do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any >>>> purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. >>>>> > > > -- >>>>> > > > TF-A mailing list >>>>> > > > TF-A@lists.trustedfirmware.org >>>>> > > > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any >>>> attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are >>>> not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and >>>> do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any >>>> purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any >>>> attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are >>>> not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and >>>> do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any >>>> purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any >>>>> attachments >>>> are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the >>>> intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not >>>> disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or >>>> store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. >>>>> -- >>>>> TF-A mailing list >>>>> TF-A@lists.trustedfirmware.org >>>>> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> TF-A mailing list >>>> TF-A@lists.trustedfirmware.org >>>> https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a