Hi All,
I have several questions. Thanks in advance for helping out.
1. I am trying to build a TF-M application for my platform with small profile with asymmetric signing module enabled. I tried using following command
cmake -S . -B build -G Ninja -DTFM_PLATFORM=MY/PLATFORM -DTFM_PROFILE="profile_small" -DCRYPTO_ASYM_SIGN_MODULE_ENABLED=y.
However, the asymmetric signing module is not included. More specifically, in trusted-firmware-m/secure_fw/partitions/crypto/crypto_asymmetric.c, the #if CRYPTO_ASYM_SIGN_MODULE_ENABLED is not true.
From what I understand, the -DCRYPTO_ASYM_SIGN_MODULE_ENABLED=y only define the macro, but not set it to 1, therefore, the #if CRYPTO_ASYM_SIGN_MODULE_ENABLED is not true. I am wondering if there is any way I can enable -DCRYPTO_ASYM_SIGN_MODULE_ENABLED module while still staying in small profile. I am aware that the default CRYPTO_ENGINE_BUF_SIZE might not be enough and I am willing to override it with a command line flag. Preferably, I would not want to enable asymmetric module in config.cmake as I only want to enable it for one specific application.
1. If to build with Zephyr and have TF-M as a module, is there anyway to enable asymmetric signing module given a small profile (I actually care more about this question than first question)
1. Just out of curiosity, how do you use menuconfig in TF-M. I did try -DMENUCONFIG=ON, but the compiler complains
CMake Error at config/kconfig.cmake:31 (file):
file STRINGS file
"trusted-firmware-m/config/../platform/ext/target/MY/PLATFORM/preload.cmake"
cannot be read.
Call Stack (most recent call first):
config/kconfig.cmake:174 (convert_normal_cmake_config_to_kconfig)
CMakeLists.txt:26 (include)
I thought preload.cmake is no longer required.
Thank you very much!
Best regards,
Hao
Hi,
I noticed this FIXME note in platform_sp.c. Is it still valid? If so, why does it only work with Isolation level 1? I thought system reset is typically an NVIC register write and platform SP should be able to do that.
enum tfm_platform_err_t platform_sp_system_reset(void)
{
/* FIXME: The system reset functionality is only supported in isolation
* level 1.
*/
tfm_platform_hal_system_reset();
return TFM_PLATFORM_ERR_SUCCESS;
}
Regards,
Brian Quach
SimpleLink MCU
Texas Instruments Inc.
Hi,
I'm doing a PoC on initial attestation for an university project using a
RP2350 board and I'm not really understanding why boot seed is stored in
OTP, shouldn't it be a value changing on each boot?
Pico SDK conveniently exposes one via a ROM function (rom_get_boot_random).
Another similar doubt I have is w.r.t. implementation id, couldn't it be
read from the board id (pico_get_unique_board_id)? Board id is factory
programmed in otp so it should actually be unique.
Best Regards,
Augusto Zanellato
Hi, is GCC 13.3 supported by the TFM build? Has anyone tried it? I see the documentation says v7.3.1+.
Regards,
Brian Quach
SimpleLink MCU
Texas Instruments Inc.
Hi Anton
Thank you for your response.
Let me break it down a bit.
1. We have several subsystems running on the non-secure side that require certain sensitive metadata to be stored in ITS.
2. Default values of ITS parameters are insufficient.
3. While building the Zephyr app with TF-M, NS-side (during build) passes these overriding values to CMake, which adds the specified preprocessor definitions to the compiler flags of TF-M, ensuring they are available during compilation.
4. Zephyr already has the harness for this flow.
This entire flow currently doesn’t work if we don’t explicitly use these preprocessors in TF-M CMake files.
Using a custom profile is not feasible for us because the overriding values are provided by the NS side based on their specific needs.
Additionally, even when we attempt to provide these parameters through the command line while building only TF-M (without NS-side), we encounter the same warning: "Manually-specified variables were not used by the project."
This warning indicates that these parameters are not being utilized in the CMake scripts (which make sense).
I guess the question would be is there a way to override these parameters from command-line, while being platform agnostic? If not, is there any specific reason we chose not to, other than this approach could potentially override the platform specific configuration, like you suggested?
We would appreciate any guidance or suggestions on how to properly handle this scenario. If needed, we can discuss this further in the next TF-M Tech forum, like you suggested.
Regards
Saurabh
On 1/24/25, 12:47 PM, "Anton Komlev via TF-M" <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> wrote:
Hi Saurabh,
If I understand you correctly, you're looking to modify the ITS_MAX_ASSET definition, which is a build-time option and cannot be changed post S-side build. Could you please explain your scenario for wanting to update it from the NS-side?
You're correct that a platform can redefine certain options which is intended behavior, allowing platforms to either override or verify these settings. For more details, you can refer to the TF-M configuration priorities here: https://trustedfirmware-m.readthedocs.io/en/latest/configuration/index.html… <https://trustedfirmware-m.readthedocs.io/en/latest/configuration/index.html…>.
The highest priority is the command line, which can override options even those defined in platforms. We should proceed cautiously with this approach, as there might be reasons why platforms alter the default configuration.
A recommended alternative is to create a custom profile and place all your options there, though some platforms might still overwrite them as expected.
We can discuss this further in the next TF-M Tech forum if you wish.
Hope that helps,
Anton
-----Original Message-----
From: Jain, Saurabh via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2025 7:47 PM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [TF-M] Inquiry on Overriding ITS Parameters in TF-M via Zephyr
Hi All,
We are developing a platform using TF-M with Zephyr running on the Non-Secure (NS) side. As part of our requirements, we need to override certain ITS-related parameters, such as ITS_MAX_ASSET, from the NS side.
Zephyr provides a mechanism for this through Kconfig.tfm under modules/trusted-firmware-m, which includes symbols like TFM_ITS_MAX_ASSET_SIZE_OVERRIDE. When enabled, these configurations are passed to the TF-M build system via TFM_CMAKE_ARGS through CMake under modules/trusted-firmware-m. However, we observe that TF-M does not seem to support external overrides for these parameters. This results in the CMake warning:
"Manually-specified variables were not used by the project."
As a result, the overrides are ignored.
Currently, we address this by explicitly checking for external definitions of ITS_MAX_ASSET in platform-specific TF-M CMake files. While this works, it is platform-specific.
We would like to confirm:
1. Is there an existing platform-independent method to achieve such overrides that we may have missed?
2. If not, would the community be open to adding support for this functionality so it can be upstreamed and benefit other platforms?
Looking forward to your input.
Best regards,
Saurabh
--
TF-M mailing list -- tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> To unsubscribe send an email to tf-m-leave(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mailto:tf-m-leave@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
--
TF-M mailing list -- tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to tf-m-leave(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <mailto:tf-m-leave@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Hi All,
We are developing a platform using TF-M with Zephyr running on the Non-Secure (NS) side. As part of our requirements, we need to override certain ITS-related parameters, such as ITS_MAX_ASSET, from the NS side.
Zephyr provides a mechanism for this through Kconfig.tfm under modules/trusted-firmware-m, which includes symbols like TFM_ITS_MAX_ASSET_SIZE_OVERRIDE. When enabled, these configurations are passed to the TF-M build system via TFM_CMAKE_ARGS through CMake under modules/trusted-firmware-m. However, we observe that TF-M does not seem to support external overrides for these parameters. This results in the CMake warning:
"Manually-specified variables were not used by the project."
As a result, the overrides are ignored.
Currently, we address this by explicitly checking for external definitions of ITS_MAX_ASSET in platform-specific TF-M CMake files. While this works, it is platform-specific.
We would like to confirm:
1. Is there an existing platform-independent method to achieve such overrides that we may have missed?
2. If not, would the community be open to adding support for this functionality so it can be upstreamed and benefit other platforms?
Looking forward to your input.
Best regards,
Saurabh
Hi Everyone,
During our investigation into the slow write operations of the PSA Protected Storage (PS) API, we identified that numerous (>10) flash erase calls occur when executing psa_ps_set() or psa_ps_remove(). A significant portion of these erase calls is linked to the rollback protection mechanism, specifically for updating Non-Volatile (NV) counters.
A potential improvement we are considering is to differentiate rollback protection requirements based on the type of flash memory being used.
*
For systems utilizing internal flash, we suggest possibility to disable rollback protection when encryption is enabled. This improves speed of write and remove operations and reduces the flash wear.
*
Rollback protection should be enabled when protected storage is located in external flash to ensure data integrity and security
Currently, there is a Kconfig option, CONFIG_TFM_PS_ROLLBACK_PROTECTION, to disable rollback protection. However, a build-time check requires that PS encryption is also disabled, as referenced here:
https://git.trustedfirmware.org/plugins/gitiles/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m.git…
To better align rollback protection with the type of flash memory, there is the possibility of updating the macro rule. This could involve either removing the existing rollback protection check or adding a new rule based on the flash type, enforcing rollback protection only for external flash. While introducing a Kconfig option for the flash memory type is a potential solution, it raises concerns about reduced security in cases of misconfiguration.
Your insights on how to address this would be invaluable. Thank you in advance for your input!
Best regards,
Juha Ylinen
Hi all,
When TF-M RPC callbacks were introduced to support multi-core mailbox handling, typically only a single mailbox interrupt source was available on a multi-core system.
Therefore, in the initial design, RPC callback handle_req(void) doesn't pass any information of mailbox interrupt source to platform mailbox drivers.
Recently, some platforms, such as RSE based ones, consists of multiple mailbox interrupt sources.
I notice that those platforms fetch and parse mailbox messages in their mailbox IRQ handlers. It can take quite a long time in IRQ handlers and doesn't get full benefits from Second-Level Interrupt Handling.
Due to the limitation of RPC callback handle_req(void), those platforms are unable to move mailbox message handling to threaded NS Agent Mailbox SP context.
I'd propose to add a new RPC callback handle_req_irq_src(irq_src) to pass mailbox interrupt source information to platform drivers. With this information, platform drivers can identify the source and select the corresponding handler to fetch, parse and dispatch mailbox messages in NS Agent Mailbox SP context, instead of in IRQ handlers.
If platform owners are all satisfied with this new RPC callback, I also wonder if it can replace the existing handle_req() in future, assumed no backward compatible issues are raised.
Please can you review the patches: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-M/trusted-firmware-m/+/34317/1?
Any comment is welcome. Thank you.
Best regards,
David Hu
Hi All,
I pushed for initial testing and review a series of patches to support the Scheduling-NSPE Hybrid Platform Solution (aka Solution-2).
A "Hybrid Platform" is an extension of the MULTICORE case where applications also run in the NS-side of the core that hosts TF-M SPE.
Patches can be found at this gerrit topic (hybrid-plat-nspe): https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22hybrid-plat-nspe%22.
All the patches are Request-For-Comments (RFC) and the community is welcome to provide feedback on such changes/proposal.
The "Hybrid Platform" support coming to TF-M has been discussed a few times in the past and slides and recordings are available in the technical forum past events: https://www.trustedfirmware.org/meetings/tf-m-technical-forum/.
This presented solution follows the main ideas presented in the past.
However, since the last presentations, some adjustments have been done, in particular around:
- naming: we won't use numbers for solutions, like Sol.1, 2 etc, but instead we name them: _SPE, _NSPE etc, to make immediately clear the use-case.
- "simple first" approach: we aim to provide a "simple" solution in the attempt to provide an initial reference and keep the core code readable, compact and testable. If there are significant use-cases to be included, please share your feedback and we'll find a best solution.
Kindly expect some changes on these proposed patches above while I rebase, perform some other tests and need to refactor some portions.
Expected timeline for Hybrid Platform Solution:
- SPE-support: already merged into mainline
- NSPE-support (this series above), merge within two months (end of Feb-25), provided that there will be no disruptive changes
- BALANCED-support: a new set will be available around the middle of 2025 (subject to change).
Many thanks in advance and happy New Year.
Best regards,
Nicola
Nicola Mazzucato (7):
[RFC 1/7] SPM: tfm_rpc: Add `process_new_msg handler`
[RFC 2/7] tfm_spe_mailbox: Add `mailbox_process_new_msg` handler
[RFC 3/7] ns_agent_mailbox: Add NS_AGENT_MBOX_PROCESS_NEW_MSG_SIGNAL aux service
[RFC 4/7] SPM: backend_ipc: Conditionally assert MBOX signal on SCHED_TYPE
[RFC 5/7] SPM: tfm_multi_core: Record and clear mailbox IRQ via multi_core API
[RFC 6/7] docs: hybrid_platform: Add documentation
[RFC 7/7] Config Base for Hybrid Platform
Nicola Mazzucato (he/him/his) | CE-Software Group | Arm
110 Fulbourn Rd, CB1 9NJ, Cambridge UK
At Arm we work flexibly and globally, if you receive this email outside of your usual working hours please do not feel that you have to respond immediately.
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.
