October 2020 - TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging

by Ken Liu

Hi, Thank Tamas for the scenario, this is a good example. There were some queries and initial investigations before, which shows that some users want to protect the implementation of their services, and check if there are mechanisms to help on that. I think isolation level 3 is applicable to this scenario. /Ken From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Tamas Ban via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 7:26 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi Andrej, the following scenario comes to my mind: * There is a product where secure services from different vendors are merged together and these are together make up the ARoT code. * There is a vendor who has a novel algorithm what he wants to protect against reverse engineering. * Image is delivered to the device in encrypted format. But on the device it is decrypted when moved to primary slot. * This secure partition needs the L3 isolation to be hidden from the other secure services within ARoT code. Tamas From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: 2020. október 21., szerda 11:53 To: Kevin Peng <Kevin.Peng(a)arm.com<mailto:Kevin.Peng@arm.com>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi Kevin, Do you know any real (not academic) MCU application where L3 isolation is required? People ask, but I have nothing to tell. Even for L2 is difficult to find something, for most of cases L1 is enough. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:27 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi all, We've finished the PoC of isolation level 3 along with the new TFM HAL on the feature branch. And now we are migrating the patches to master branch by cherry-picking, squashing and refining. Here are the several topics ongoing parallel: * Linker script changes for isolation L3<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * Isolation HAL API<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * SPM log<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * SP log<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> And the HAL API docs: * Docs: Design of the TF-M isolation HAL<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> More patches will be coming soon, will keep you update-to-date. Please help on reviews, thanks. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:21 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi, A new branch created for two repos 'TF-M/tf-m-tests' and 'TF-M/trusted-firmware-m', this feature branch is for isolation related patches merging. The POC patches would come in following days, first platform would be AN521. If you want to try this branch, please: IMPORTANT: Checkout 'feature-isoaltion-level3' branch for both 'TF-M/tf-m-tests' and 'TF-M/trusted-firmware-m'. BR /Ken

6 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging

by Tamas Ban

Hi Andrej, the following scenario comes to my mind: * There is a product where secure services from different vendors are merged together and these are together make up the ARoT code. * There is a vendor who has a novel algorithm what he wants to protect against reverse engineering. * Image is delivered to the device in encrypted format. But on the device it is decrypted when moved to primary slot. * This secure partition needs the L3 isolation to be hidden from the other secure services within ARoT code. Tamas From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: 2020. október 21., szerda 11:53 To: Kevin Peng <Kevin.Peng(a)arm.com> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi Kevin, Do you know any real (not academic) MCU application where L3 isolation is required? People ask, but I have nothing to tell. Even for L2 is difficult to find something, for most of cases L1 is enough. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:27 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi all, We've finished the PoC of isolation level 3 along with the new TFM HAL on the feature branch. And now we are migrating the patches to master branch by cherry-picking, squashing and refining. Here are the several topics ongoing parallel: * Linker script changes for isolation L3<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * Isolation HAL API<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * SPM log<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * SP log<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> And the HAL API docs: * Docs: Design of the TF-M isolation HAL<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> More patches will be coming soon, will keep you update-to-date. Please help on reviews, thanks. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:21 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi, A new branch created for two repos 'TF-M/tf-m-tests' and 'TF-M/trusted-firmware-m', this feature branch is for isolation related patches merging. The POC patches would come in following days, first platform would be AN521. If you want to try this branch, please: IMPORTANT: Checkout 'feature-isoaltion-level3' branch for both 'TF-M/tf-m-tests' and 'TF-M/trusted-firmware-m'. BR /Ken

6 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging

by Andrej Butok

Hi Kevin, Do you know any real (not academic) MCU application where L3 isolation is required? People ask, but I have nothing to tell. Even for L2 is difficult to find something, for most of cases L1 is enough. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Kevin Peng via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 11:27 AM To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi all, We've finished the PoC of isolation level 3 along with the new TFM HAL on the feature branch. And now we are migrating the patches to master branch by cherry-picking, squashing and refining. Here are the several topics ongoing parallel: * Linker script changes for isolation L3<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * Isolation HAL API<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * SPM log<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> * SP log<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> And the HAL API docs: * Docs: Design of the TF-M isolation HAL<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr…> More patches will be coming soon, will keep you update-to-date. Please help on reviews, thanks. Best Regards, Kevin From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:21 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [TF-M] Feature branch 'feature-isolation-level3' is created for related patches merging Hi, A new branch created for two repos 'TF-M/tf-m-tests' and 'TF-M/trusted-firmware-m', this feature branch is for isolation related patches merging. The POC patches would come in following days, first platform would be AN521. If you want to try this branch, please: IMPORTANT: Checkout 'feature-isoaltion-level3' branch for both 'TF-M/tf-m-tests' and 'TF-M/trusted-firmware-m'. BR /Ken

6 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Another build issue

by David Hu

Hi Chris, I've raised a ticket https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/issues/239 on PSA Arch test github repo. It will be fixed by PSA Arch test team later. We will follow the fix status. Thanks again for reporting this issue. Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Hu via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:05 AM To: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Another build issue Hi Chris, I agree with you. It looks like PSA arch test doesn't check the correct clone destination. According to https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/blob/master/api-tests/CMakeL…, PSA arch test checks whether psa_qcbor exists. However, the actual clone destination of psa_qcbor folder is under CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR as https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/blob/master/api-tests/CMakeL… sets. Therefore, I guess this issue will be triggered as long as CMake script execution is in the different directory as binary folder is. I changed the destination to ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/${PSA_TARGET_QCBOR} in check step and it looks like the issue is fixed. IMOO, the quick workaround is to entirely remove the build directory. I will discuss with Raef to determine a final solution. Thanks a lot for reporting this issue! Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:57 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] Another build issue This one is a failure when re-configuring the build (even though the configuration is the same): $ mkdir build_GNUARM_Release $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=INITIAL_ATTESTATION (lots of output - eventually succeeds) $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=INITIAL_ATTESTATION (less output, eventually fails) fatal: destination path 'psa_qcbor' already exists and is not an empty directory. CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Release/lib/ext/psa_arch_tests-src/api-tests/CMakeLists.txt:324 (message): git clone failed for https://github.com/laurencelundblade/QCBOR.git I suspect that this might be due to the PSA stuff, rather than TFM per se, but it manifests when building TFM... Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> This message and any attachments may contain confidential information from Cypress or its subsidiaries. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message.

6 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Generated files location

by Andrej Butok

Hi Anton If it's not possible to avoid a file generation now, it's good to have pre-generated files for a most typical configuration (l2, IPC etc.). As I mentioned before, ideally to use TFM as a real component/framework without generation of any source code. BUT If you believe, this requirement breaks a TFM concept, just tell us. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 9:27 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Generated files location Hi Andrej, Essentially, do you mean to move the files back to code tree and synch them with templates manually as it was ? Cheers, Anton From: Andrej Butok <andrey.butok(a)nxp.com<mailto:andrey.butok@nxp.com>> Sent: 19 October 2020 16:15 To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: RE: Generated files location Hi Anton, Another option: 3. Avoid the mandatory on-the-fly generation. Try to make TFM a component/framework, which is configurable by compile & run time parameters. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 5:00 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>> Subject: [TF-M] Generated files location Hi, Some source files in TF-M are templated and generated inside /<build_dir>/generated/ on the fly as a part of build process. This guaranty consistency between templates and generated but might make a trouble for IDE, where not all source files exist at the first run. I see 2 options for solution: 1. Explicitly generate those files via cmake as a part of IDE project creation (1 time action) 2. Relay on CMSIS Pack for IDE, where generated files must be presents Any alternative thoughts? Anton

6 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Generated files location

by Andrej Butok

Hi Anton, Another option: 3. Avoid the mandatory on-the-fly generation. Try to make TFM a component/framework, which is configurable by compile & run time parameters. Thanks, Andrej From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 5:00 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: [TF-M] Generated files location Hi, Some source files in TF-M are templated and generated inside /<build_dir>/generated/ on the fly as a part of build process. This guaranty consistency between templates and generated but might make a trouble for IDE, where not all source files exist at the first run. I see 2 options for solution: 1. Explicitly generate those files via cmake as a part of IDE project creation (1 time action) 2. Relay on CMSIS Pack for IDE, where generated files must be presents Any alternative thoughts? Anton

6 years

2
1
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Another build issue

by David Hu

Hi Chris, I agree with you. It looks like PSA arch test doesn't check the correct clone destination. According to https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/blob/master/api-tests/CMakeL…, PSA arch test checks whether psa_qcbor exists. However, the actual clone destination of psa_qcbor folder is under CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR as https://github.com/ARM-software/psa-arch-tests/blob/master/api-tests/CMakeL… sets. Therefore, I guess this issue will be triggered as long as CMake script execution is in the different directory as binary folder is. I changed the destination to ${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/${PSA_TARGET_QCBOR} in check step and it looks like the issue is fixed. IMOO, the quick workaround is to entirely remove the build directory. I will discuss with Raef to determine a final solution. Thanks a lot for reporting this issue! Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:57 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Another build issue This one is a failure when re-configuring the build (even though the configuration is the same): $ mkdir build_GNUARM_Release $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=INITIAL_ATTESTATION (lots of output - eventually succeeds) $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=INITIAL_ATTESTATION (less output, eventually fails) fatal: destination path 'psa_qcbor' already exists and is not an empty directory. CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Release/lib/ext/psa_arch_tests-src/api-tests/CMakeLists.txt:324 (message): git clone failed for https://github.com/laurencelundblade/QCBOR.git I suspect that this might be due to the PSA stuff, rather than TFM per se, but it manifests when building TFM... Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> This message and any attachments may contain confidential information from Cypress or its subsidiaries. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message.

6 years

1
0
0 0

Another build issue

by Christopher Brand

This one is a failure when re-configuring the build (even though the configuration is the same): $ mkdir build_GNUARM_Release $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=INITIAL_ATTESTATION (lots of output - eventually succeeds) $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release -G"Unix Makefiles" -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=INITIAL_ATTESTATION (less output, eventually fails) fatal: destination path 'psa_qcbor' already exists and is not an empty directory. CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Release/lib/ext/psa_arch_tests-src/api-tests/CMakeLists.txt:324 (message): git clone failed for https://github.com/laurencelundblade/QCBOR.git I suspect that this might be due to the PSA stuff, rather than TFM per se, but it manifests when building TFM... Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> This message and any attachments may contain confidential information from Cypress or its subsidiaries. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message.

6 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Build failure

by Christopher Brand

Looks like that test is indeed not supported on PSoC64. The error message threw me because it says what the valid values are for -DTARGET (which does include one containing "psoc64"), but it doesn't tell me what -DTAREGT was actually set to. Chris From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 1:42 PM To: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Build failure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We definitely used to be able to at least build ConfigPsaApiTestIPC.cmake (and the level 2 version) for PSoC64 under the old build system. It looks like we've always done so with one of the other PSA test suites also selected, which doesn't seem to be an option with the new build system. Is there an example TEST_PSA_API=IPC build for another platform I can look at? Chris From: David Hu <David.Hu(a)arm.com<mailto:David.Hu@arm.com>> Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 11:10 PM To: Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.com>> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: RE: Build failure Hi Chris, Sorry for the trouble. May I know if the same configurations worked with the previous build system? I checked a previous version of PSoC 64 specifics and it didn't explicitly claim to support FF compliance tests. Could you please confirm it with Alamy? Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 7:07 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Subject: [TF-M] Build failure I'm experimenting with the new build system, and seeing an error. Looking at docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instruction.rst, it mentions that TEST_PSA_API=IPC is a valid option ("Firmware Framework test suite"). When I try to configure for that build, though, I get an error: $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release '-GUnix Makefiles' -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=IPC CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Release/lib/ext/psa_arch_tests-src/api-tests/CMakeLists.txt:119 (message): [PSA] : Error: Unspported value for -DTARGET=, supported targets are : common;tgt_dev_apis_stdc;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an521;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an524;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an539;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_a;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_b1;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_s1;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_psoc64;tgt_ff_tfm_an521;tgt_ff_tfm_musca_a;tgt_ff_tfm_musca_b1 I see the same error with and without "-DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=2". Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> This message and any attachments may contain confidential information from Cypress or its subsidiaries. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message. This message and any attachments may contain confidential information from Cypress or its subsidiaries. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message. This message and any attachments may contain confidential information from Cypress or its subsidiaries. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message.

6 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Build failure

by David Hu

Hi Chris, Sorry for the trouble. May I know if the same configurations worked with the previous build system? I checked a previous version of PSoC 64 specifics and it didn't explicitly claim to support FF compliance tests. Could you please confirm it with Alamy? Best regards, Hu Ziji From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Christopher Brand via TF-M Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 7:07 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Build failure I'm experimenting with the new build system, and seeing an error. Looking at docs/getting_started/tfm_build_instruction.rst, it mentions that TEST_PSA_API=IPC is a valid option ("Firmware Framework test suite"). When I try to configure for that build, though, I get an error: $ cmake -S . -B build_GNUARM_Release '-GUnix Makefiles' -DTFM_PLATFORM=cypress/psoc64 -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=toolchain_GNUARM.cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DTEST_PSA_API=IPC CMake Error at build_GNUARM_Release/lib/ext/psa_arch_tests-src/api-tests/CMakeLists.txt:119 (message): [PSA] : Error: Unspported value for -DTARGET=, supported targets are : common;tgt_dev_apis_stdc;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an521;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an524;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_an539;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_a;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_b1;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_musca_s1;tgt_dev_apis_tfm_psoc64;tgt_ff_tfm_an521;tgt_ff_tfm_musca_a;tgt_ff_tfm_musca_b1 I see the same error with and without "-DTFM_ISOLATION_LEVEL=2". Chris Brand Sr Prin Software Engr, MCD: WIRELESS Cypress Semiconductor Corp. An Infineon Technologies Company #320-13700 International Place, Richmond, British Columbia V6V 2X8 Canada www.infineon.com<http://www.infineon.com> www.cypress.com<http://www.cypress.com> This message and any attachments may contain confidential information from Cypress or its subsidiaries. If it has been received in error, please advise the sender and immediately delete this message.

6 years

2
1
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M October 2020