I've started looking at the new build system, and it looks like a nice
improvement.
I have a problem, that likely has a simple solution, although I'm not
sure which.
I've looked at the AN521 target, and the preload.cmake file is included
very early from the root CMakeLists.txt
The first line of preload.cmake is:
---
set(CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR cortex-m33+nodsp)
---
For IAR that line should be:
---
set(CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR Cortex-M33.no_dsp)
---
I need to discriminate between the toolchains already there, but I
haven't figured out what the best way would be to do that. Not much is
setup at this moment in the run.
Ideas?
Thomas
--
*Thomas Törnblom*, /Product Engineer/
IAR Systems AB
Box 23051, Strandbodgatan 1
SE-750 23 Uppsala, SWEDEN
Mobile: +46 76 180 17 80 Fax: +46 18 16 78 01
E-mail: thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com <mailto:thomas.tornblom@iar.com>
Website: www.iar.com <http://www.iar.com>
Twitter: www.twitter.com/iarsystems <http://www.twitter.com/iarsystems>
Hi Øyvind,
Thank you for the proposal. Believe all agreed that NS side shall be separated from S side and be OS independent. There were multiple efforts recently toward this direction like repo split and build system refactoring. I think currently we almost achieve it.
Assume you have seen that new build system allows creates S, NS, BL targets independently.
Could you specify the remaining dependencies, you concern?
Thanks,
Anton
-----Original Message-----
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Rønningstad, Øyvind via TF-M
Sent: 02 September 2020 13:31
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: [TF-M] Simpler integration into other projects
Hi list
I have a proposal to make it easier to integrate TF-M into other existing projects, e.g. RTOSes such as Zephyr. I'm using Zephyr as an example, but I mean that it should apply to any external project that wants to integrate TF-M.
I'm assuming the project wants to use the secure FW as is, so no change is needed there. However, in the NS FW we want to integrate the NS callable (PSA) API into native Zephyr applications, but the NS ("app") part of TF-M has some OS dependencies that interfere with this.
My proposal is that the TF-M build system creates OS-independent NS libs that can be linked directly into the native Zephyr app.
Ideally, the Zephyr build system should need to only do the following:
- Call TF-M build system.
- Retrieve S binaries (and optionally mcuboot binary).
- Link NS lib(s) into project app.
- Add include directories to NS callable API.
Additionally, the RTOS will likely need to make an OS wrapper to support the OS functions needed.
Please tell me your thoughts. I'm not an expert in Cmake and libs, so please also tell me if the above is infeasible in any way.
I think making such integrations as simple as possible will be very beneficial, not just when doing the initial integration, but continuously, since changes in TF-M will eventually require tweaks in the integration.
Best regards,
Øyvind Rønningstad
--
TF-M mailing list
TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m
Thanks Gyorgy for your inputs.
My only concern with git hooks is that they are triggered when patches are pushed for review whereas checkpatch is something needs to be frequently run for non-trivial patchsets. The other issue is I am not sure whether we can pass different arguments to githooks whereas build system integration allows that (for example check the entire tree vs only the changed lines). Also having it part of regular build allows easier integration with work flow. Hence many OSS projects integrate this into regular build for this reason.
But as you say, perhaps the first solution is to download the script and run locally and I don't have a strong opinion against git hooks either. Whatever works best can be used.
Best Regards
Soby Mathew
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Gyorgy Szing via TF-M
Sent: 02 September 2020 15:25
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch
Hi,
My two cents on the topic.
Sort term
Sort term it is possible to clone the ci-scripts repository and to run the check-patch script locally (https://git.trustedfirmware.org/ci/tf-m-ci-scripts.git/tree/run-checkpatch.…) . The script has some in-line documentation.
Long term
I think this is an automation topic which may have a connection to the build system, but the right place for a solution in not there.
When it comes to automation the best is to differentiate two use cases:
1. Centralized.
This is where the automation happens on a server, and the main purpose is to keep authentic records about quality, or to drive delivery (i.e. push documents to hosting provider.)
For this we have Jenkins.
2. De-centralized.
This is when the automation is executed on the developers machine. How the user interacts with this system can be an implementation detail. The same scripts could be executed by git hooks, manually, or by the build system.
I think the best solution would be to use git-hooks for decentralized automation, as this is there already, and has a well defined and standard interface towards the developer. The main problem with git hooks is, git as a policy leaves hook management as the responsibility of the developer, and there is no built-in way to deploy hooks to the developers machine. (This is due to security considerations.) As a solution to this issue multiple "hook frameworks" have been developed.
I suggest investigating these and to build a decentralize automation solution on top of one of them. Ideally the same scripts executed by Jenkins could be executed by the framework too.
Some contenders (and the language thy are developed with):
* https://github.com/icefox/git-hooks - bash
* https://github.com/git-hooks/git-hooks -golang
* https://github.com/gnustavo/Git-Hooks - perl
Of course there are many more.
/George
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Soby Mathew via TF-M
Sent: 02 September 2020 15:18
To: Karl Zhang <Karl.Zhang(a)arm.com<mailto:Karl.Zhang@arm.com>>; Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch
Hi,
Just my view on this,
One of the things that will be helpful is to have is the checkpatch script imported into the project and have a `make checkpatch` build target. This will help to pipe clean check-patch errors from developer side before pushing patch for review. We could also make it a git hook but then I feel it is less convenient than having a regular build target.
Best Regards
Soby Mathew
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Karl Zhang via TF-M
Sent: 02 September 2020 01:56
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.com>>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch
Hi Chris,
The CI job was trigged from https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/3521, you could find a list of all jobs and status of each job on Gerrit page that triggered by that job, job list example can be found at the end of this email.
Another way is from the link you mentioned, that is a pipeline of how CI jobs start from one stage to another stage, if you click on the node of each stage, "Triggered Builds" will list the related job and you can check the details of it.
The Open CI for TF-M is under development of Linaro, development plan and status can be found from https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/ , it is not stable at this moment that we are continuously addressing on. There is no latest document for detail introduction of current Open CI yet.
Open CI - developer.trustedfirmware.org<https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/>
Milestone Deliverables Target Completion Status; M1: Planning, Handover and Deployment SOW and project plan Hand over from OCE to Developer Services
developer.trustedfirmware.org
For the checkpatch job, it is a part of the static check stage, the error from this stage won't impact the final CI score, we need more investigation before active all static checks. The CI jobs were not able to trigger manually. There is a request to Linaro for the requirement that already working on, hope it can be deployed to the public Open CI soon.
Job list example on Gerrit after CI job:
Passed: 4, Failed: 18, Not done: 0
AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29147/>
-1
AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29146/>
-1
AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionProfileS_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29152/>
-1
AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegression_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29144/>
-1
....
checkpatch<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-checkpatch/472/>
-1
cppcheck<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-cppcheck/472/>
1
lava_boot<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/>
1
lava_test<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/>
1
psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29157/>
-1
psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29154/>
-1
tf-m-build<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/479/>
-1
tf-m-build-docs<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-docs/647/>
1
Thanks,
Karl Zhang
________________________________
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 <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12:35 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Subject: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch
So I see the CI system runs checkpatch, but I don't see any mention of checkpatch under the "docs" directory, or in any of the gerrit reviews, or even on the mailing list. The output in the CI system, as far as I can see, is not particularly useful (I followed the link posted on my review to https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/tf-m-static/detai… but could find anything indicating what issue was actually found).
Is there any documentation on how we can run checkptach manually? Or on how to see what the CI version is actually complaining about? Should I just be ignoring the CI checkpatch errors?
Thanks,
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.
Hello,
The agenda for this forum:
1. Hardware fault injection mitigation
2. Secure Partition Addition Demonstration
See you,
Anton
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Anton Komlev via TF-M
Sent: 26 August 2020 13:52
To: 'tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org' <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Technical Forum call - September 3
Hello,
The next Technical Forum is planned on Thursday, September 3 at 15:00-16:00 UTC (US time zone).
Please reply on this email with your proposals for agenda topics.
Recording and slides of previous meetings are here:
https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/
Best regards,
Anton Komlev
Hi,
My two cents on the topic.
Sort term
Sort term it is possible to clone the ci-scripts repository and to run the check-patch script locally (https://git.trustedfirmware.org/ci/tf-m-ci-scripts.git/tree/run-checkpatch.…) . The script has some in-line documentation.
Long term
I think this is an automation topic which may have a connection to the build system, but the right place for a solution in not there.
When it comes to automation the best is to differentiate two use cases:
1. Centralized.
This is where the automation happens on a server, and the main purpose is to keep authentic records about quality, or to drive delivery (i.e. push documents to hosting provider.)
For this we have Jenkins.
2. De-centralized.
This is when the automation is executed on the developers machine. How the user interacts with this system can be an implementation detail. The same scripts could be executed by git hooks, manually, or by the build system.
I think the best solution would be to use git-hooks for decentralized automation, as this is there already, and has a well defined and standard interface towards the developer. The main problem with git hooks is, git as a policy leaves hook management as the responsibility of the developer, and there is no built-in way to deploy hooks to the developers machine. (This is due to security considerations.) As a solution to this issue multiple "hook frameworks" have been developed.
I suggest investigating these and to build a decentralize automation solution on top of one of them. Ideally the same scripts executed by Jenkins could be executed by the framework too.
Some contenders (and the language thy are developed with):
* https://github.com/icefox/git-hooks - bash
* https://github.com/git-hooks/git-hooks -golang
* https://github.com/gnustavo/Git-Hooks - perl
Of course there are many more.
/George
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Soby Mathew via TF-M
Sent: 02 September 2020 15:18
To: Karl Zhang <Karl.Zhang(a)arm.com>; Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch
Hi,
Just my view on this,
One of the things that will be helpful is to have is the checkpatch script imported into the project and have a `make checkpatch` build target. This will help to pipe clean check-patch errors from developer side before pushing patch for review. We could also make it a git hook but then I feel it is less convenient than having a regular build target.
Best Regards
Soby Mathew
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Karl Zhang via TF-M
Sent: 02 September 2020 01:56
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com<mailto:chris.brand@cypress.com>>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch
Hi Chris,
The CI job was trigged from https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/3521, you could find a list of all jobs and status of each job on Gerrit page that triggered by that job, job list example can be found at the end of this email.
Another way is from the link you mentioned, that is a pipeline of how CI jobs start from one stage to another stage, if you click on the node of each stage, "Triggered Builds" will list the related job and you can check the details of it.
The Open CI for TF-M is under development of Linaro, development plan and status can be found from https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/ , it is not stable at this moment that we are continuously addressing on. There is no latest document for detail introduction of current Open CI yet.
Open CI - developer.trustedfirmware.org<https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/>
Milestone Deliverables Target Completion Status; M1: Planning, Handover and Deployment SOW and project plan Hand over from OCE to Developer Services
developer.trustedfirmware.org
For the checkpatch job, it is a part of the static check stage, the error from this stage won't impact the final CI score, we need more investigation before active all static checks. The CI jobs were not able to trigger manually. There is a request to Linaro for the requirement that already working on, hope it can be deployed to the public Open CI soon.
Job list example on Gerrit after CI job:
Passed: 4, Failed: 18, Not done: 0
AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29147/>
-1
AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29146/>
-1
AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionProfileS_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29152/>
-1
AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegression_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29144/>
-1
....
checkpatch<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-checkpatch/472/>
-1
cppcheck<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-cppcheck/472/>
1
lava_boot<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/>
1
lava_test<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/>
1
psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29157/>
-1
psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29154/>
-1
tf-m-build<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/479/>
-1
tf-m-build-docs<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-docs/647/>
1
Thanks,
Karl Zhang
________________________________
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 <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12:35 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Subject: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch
So I see the CI system runs checkpatch, but I don't see any mention of checkpatch under the "docs" directory, or in any of the gerrit reviews, or even on the mailing list. The output in the CI system, as far as I can see, is not particularly useful (I followed the link posted on my review to https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/tf-m-static/detai… but could find anything indicating what issue was actually found).
Is there any documentation on how we can run checkptach manually? Or on how to see what the CI version is actually complaining about? Should I just be ignoring the CI checkpatch errors?
Thanks,
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.
Hi Robert,
The current architecture abstraction depends on the some CMSIS standard macros (like __FPU_USED) to be defined and if there are vendor tools which can generate the same system file, as long as they are using the standard macros, the architecture abstraction should work alright if the generated file can be included. As Ken says, this makes architecture initialization uniform across platforms and provides the right settings to be applied for security. It also reduces the platform porting effort for new platforms. Hence the move in such a direction.
If we allow a mechanism to allow the platform provided system file to be used rather than the default system file, will that suffice your requirement ?
Best Regards
Soby Mathew
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu via TF-M
Sent: 02 September 2020 11:11
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the comment, just want to double check if the guidelines for vendors who providing platform sources to a secure software covers the recommendations here:
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-m/2020-June/001007.html
As far as we can see not all existing platforms set the registers required in the above recommendation (In Jamie's second patch), so we are trying to provide an architecture-abstraction. Meanwhile, we would notify the platform owner checking the platform-specific setting. After all platform vendor confirmed the setting of FPU we can leave this back to platform setting as you suggested - but secure firmware core logic still needs to check if platform set the FPU setting correctly.
@Soby @Jamie, please update if I missed something.
BR
/Ken
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Robert Rostohar via TF-M
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 5:30 PM
To: Jamie Fox <Jamie.Fox(a)arm.com<mailto:Jamie.Fox@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com<mailto:nd@arm.com>>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M
Hi Jamie,
I have concerns with moving FPU configuration from platform to architecture-abstraction layer.
FPU configuration is typically configured within system configuration files that are standardized in CMSIS and provided by device vendors.
Some vendors provide also tools that auto-generate the system file based on user configuration (ex: STM32CubeMX).
Therefore it would be better to leave the FPU configuration to the platform rather than moving it into architecture-abstraction.
Best regards,
Robert
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Jamie Fox via TF-M
Sent: Friday 28 August 2020 19:53
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] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M
Hi all,
There is a change open for review that adds configuration of FPU-related registers to the architecture-abstraction layer in TF-M, and removes this same configuration from platform support files. The reasoning for this is that these registers are defined by the Arm architecture, so FPU config can be unified for all platforms with the same architecture.
For Armv8-M, this also includes configuration to ensure that information is not leaked in FPU registers to NSPE when the SPE uses the FPU, and to permit the NSPE to access the FPU.
By default, TF-M will still be built without the FPU used in the SPE.
You can review the changes at:
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5405 Arch: Add function to configure coprocessors
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5406 Platform: Remove platform-specific FPU config
It would be especially helpful if platform owners could check that they are happy with FPU config being moved out of the platform support files.
Kind regards,
Jamie
Hi,
Just my view on this,
One of the things that will be helpful is to have is the checkpatch script imported into the project and have a `make checkpatch` build target. This will help to pipe clean check-patch errors from developer side before pushing patch for review. We could also make it a git hook but then I feel it is less convenient than having a regular build target.
Best Regards
Soby Mathew
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Karl Zhang via TF-M
Sent: 02 September 2020 01:56
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Christopher Brand <chris.brand(a)cypress.com>
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch
Hi Chris,
The CI job was trigged from https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/3521, you could find a list of all jobs and status of each job on Gerrit page that triggered by that job, job list example can be found at the end of this email.
Another way is from the link you mentioned, that is a pipeline of how CI jobs start from one stage to another stage, if you click on the node of each stage, "Triggered Builds" will list the related job and you can check the details of it.
The Open CI for TF-M is under development of Linaro, development plan and status can be found from https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/ , it is not stable at this moment that we are continuously addressing on. There is no latest document for detail introduction of current Open CI yet.
Open CI - developer.trustedfirmware.org<https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/collaboration/openci/>
Milestone Deliverables Target Completion Status; M1: Planning, Handover and Deployment SOW and project plan Hand over from OCE to Developer Services
developer.trustedfirmware.org
For the checkpatch job, it is a part of the static check stage, the error from this stage won't impact the final CI score, we need more investigation before active all static checks. The CI jobs were not able to trigger manually. There is a request to Linaro for the requirement that already working on, hope it can be deployed to the public Open CI soon.
Job list example on Gerrit after CI job:
Passed: 4, Failed: 18, Not done: 0
AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29147/>
-1
AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29146/>
-1
AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionProfileS_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29152/>
-1
AN519_GNUARM_ConfigRegression_Release_BL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29144/>
-1
....
checkpatch<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-checkpatch/472/>
-1
cppcheck<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-cppcheck/472/>
1
lava_boot<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/>
1
lava_test<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/474/>
1
psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPCTfmLevel2_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29157/>
-1
psoc64_GNUARM_ConfigRegressionIPC_Release_NOBL2<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-config/29154/>
-1
tf-m-build<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-and-test/479/>
-1
tf-m-build-docs<http://ci.trustedfirmware.org/job/tf-m-build-docs/647/>
1
Thanks,
Karl Zhang
________________________________
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 <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 12:35 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Subject: [TF-M] CI Checkpatch
So I see the CI system runs checkpatch, but I don't see any mention of checkpatch under the "docs" directory, or in any of the gerrit reviews, or even on the mailing list. The output in the CI system, as far as I can see, is not particularly useful (I followed the link posted on my review to https://ci.trustedfirmware.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/tf-m-static/detai… but could find anything indicating what issue was actually found).
Is there any documentation on how we can run checkptach manually? Or on how to see what the CI version is actually complaining about? Should I just be ignoring the CI checkpatch errors?
Thanks,
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.
Hi Alamy,
In my very own opinion, `psk_key_id_t` defined as structure seems to be Mbed Crypto/MbedTLS own definition and should be transparent to applications calling `psa_open_key()`, as described in https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/blob/v2.23.0/include/psa/crypto_platform….
TF-M provides standard PSA APIs and therefore the `psa_key_id_t` in `psa_open_key()` is `uint32_t` as defined in PSA Cryptography API v1 Beta 3.
The `uint32_t` `psa_key_id_t` is defined in `interface/include/psa/crypto_types.h` and included by TF-M Crypto interface files.
Then when TF-M Crypto service invokes Mbed Crypto/MbedTLS APIs to fulfill the `psa_open_key()`, it includes Mbed Crypto/MbedTLS specific header file, in which `psa_key_id_t` is defined as a structure to support multiple client.
For example, `crypto_key.c` constructs a `psa_key_id_t` structure and pass it to Mbed Crypto/MbedTLS `psa_open_key()` implementation. (https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/secure_fw/…)
It requires @Jamie Fox<mailto:Jamie.Fox@arm.com> and @Soby Mathew<mailto:Soby.Mathew@arm.com> help to provide a comprehensive answer. 😉
Best regards,
Hu Ziji
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Alamy Liu via TF-M
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:23 AM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [TF-M] psa_key_id_t type mismatch --- HardFault
Sorry all, this is a FALSE alarm.
Although some codes still include the local header file (uint32_t), none of them use psa_key_id_t at all.
Maybe the code should be more clean, but there is no run-time problem!
Sorry if it causes problems,
Alamy
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 8:38 AM Alamy Liu <alamy.liu(a)gmail.com<mailto:alamy.liu@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear all,
While I was working on the PSoC64 platform, I hit the psa_key_id_t type mismatch problem.
The patch - 98ab441e096f enables MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_KEY_FILE_ID_ENCODES_OWNER
Which in terms to use the psa_key_id_t structure (psa_key_file_id_t) in
<mbed-crypto/mbedtls>/include/psa/crypto_platform.h
Interestingly, psa_key_id_t is also defined in <tf-m>/interface/include/psa/crypto_types.h, as a uint32_t.
So, I do the following testing
I could compile the master HEAD no problem
66ee5c8861 (HEAD, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Tools: update iat-verifier README and samples
I assume the psa_key_id_t should be a structure (from mbed-crypto/mbedtls), I applied the patch below
--- a/interface/include/psa/crypto_types.h
+++ b/interface/include/psa/crypto_types.h
@@ -211,6 +211,8 @@ typedef uint8_t psa_key_persistence_t;
*/
typedef uint32_t psa_key_location_t;
+#if !defined(MBEDTLS_PSA_CRYPTO_KEY_FILE_ID_ENCODES_OWNER)
+#error Should not compile this
/** Encoding of identifiers of persistent keys.
*
* - Applications may freely choose key identifiers in the range
@@ -222,6 +224,7 @@ typedef uint32_t psa_key_location_t;
*/
typedef uint32_t psa_key_id_t;
#define PSA_KEY_ID_INIT 0
+#endif
Then, I notice that there are still many files that use uint32_t psa_key_id_t in the TF-M source tree.
a) It's good (lucky?) that TF-M seems to cut it cleanly so it doesn't run into problems (well, it happens on PSoC64, or I won't notice it).
b) It's bad that psa_key_id_t in TF-M has two different types.
I'm not going to argue what's correct/wrong. Maybe this kind of coding could be a feature in the future. I just go with it. But I found no information to define the boundary of the two types under the <tf-m>/docs/ directory. I would like to know where the boundary is, in TF-M.
In other words, Which part of the code should use the structure definition from mbedtls/mbed-crypto; which part of the code should use uint32_t ?
In my work, the problem happens when it passes psa_key_id_t as a parameter, the parent & child functions see it differently (HardFault, in my case, memory violation to other parameters).
e.g.: func_a.c (structure), func_b.c (uint32_t).
func_b.h ---- the type changes when it's included by func_a.c and/or func_b.c
Regards,
Alamy
Hi list
I have a proposal to make it easier to integrate TF-M into other existing projects, e.g. RTOSes such as Zephyr. I'm using Zephyr as an example, but I mean that it should apply to any external project that wants to integrate TF-M.
I'm assuming the project wants to use the secure FW as is, so no change is needed there. However, in the NS FW we want to integrate the NS callable (PSA) API into native Zephyr applications, but the NS ("app") part of TF-M has some OS dependencies that interfere with this.
My proposal is that the TF-M build system creates OS-independent NS libs that can be linked directly into the native Zephyr app.
Ideally, the Zephyr build system should need to only do the following:
- Call TF-M build system.
- Retrieve S binaries (and optionally mcuboot binary).
- Link NS lib(s) into project app.
- Add include directories to NS callable API.
Additionally, the RTOS will likely need to make an OS wrapper to support the OS functions needed.
Please tell me your thoughts. I'm not an expert in Cmake and libs, so please also tell me if the above is infeasible in any way.
I think making such integrations as simple as possible will be very beneficial, not just when doing the initial integration, but continuously, since changes in TF-M will eventually require tweaks in the integration.
Best regards,
Øyvind Rønningstad
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the comment, just want to double check if the guidelines for vendors who providing platform sources to a secure software covers the recommendations here:
https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/pipermail/tf-m/2020-June/001007.html
As far as we can see not all existing platforms set the registers required in the above recommendation (In Jamie's second patch), so we are trying to provide an architecture-abstraction. Meanwhile, we would notify the platform owner checking the platform-specific setting. After all platform vendor confirmed the setting of FPU we can leave this back to platform setting as you suggested - but secure firmware core logic still needs to check if platform set the FPU setting correctly.
@Soby @Jamie, please update if I missed something.
BR
/Ken
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Robert Rostohar via TF-M
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 5:30 PM
To: Jamie Fox <Jamie.Fox(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com>
Subject: Re: [TF-M] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M
Hi Jamie,
I have concerns with moving FPU configuration from platform to architecture-abstraction layer.
FPU configuration is typically configured within system configuration files that are standardized in CMSIS and provided by device vendors.
Some vendors provide also tools that auto-generate the system file based on user configuration (ex: STM32CubeMX).
Therefore it would be better to leave the FPU configuration to the platform rather than moving it into architecture-abstraction.
Best regards,
Robert
From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Jamie Fox via TF-M
Sent: Friday 28 August 2020 19:53
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] Changes to configure FPU at the architectural level in TF-M
Hi all,
There is a change open for review that adds configuration of FPU-related registers to the architecture-abstraction layer in TF-M, and removes this same configuration from platform support files. The reasoning for this is that these registers are defined by the Arm architecture, so FPU config can be unified for all platforms with the same architecture.
For Armv8-M, this also includes configuration to ensure that information is not leaked in FPU registers to NSPE when the SPE uses the FPU, and to permit the NSPE to access the FPU.
By default, TF-M will still be built without the FPU used in the SPE.
You can review the changes at:
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5405 Arch: Add function to configure coprocessors
https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/5406 Platform: Remove platform-specific FPU config
It would be especially helpful if platform owners could check that they are happy with FPU config being moved out of the platform support files.
Kind regards,
Jamie
