- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

by Andrej Butok

Hi Miklos, One more feature request: 3) Using separate files in TFM without #ifdef is causing issues for IDE projects, and requires creation of separate projects/targets (with different file set) per each feature combination. We are using IDEs (IAR, MCUx, Keil), so we have to add missing #ifdef to the original TFM source code. Please use #if/#ifdef in TFM, everywhere were it is needed. Thanks, Andrej -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Miklos Balint via TF-M Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 5:31 PM To: Thomas Törnblom <thomas.tornblom(a)iar.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Feature request Hi Thomas, I see no major issue with either suggestion, I think it makes sense to introduce improvements in these matters. For issue #1 it makes very much sense to have a shared header file for all components that rely on these definitions. I don't recall any reason why that should not be possible, it's simply something that hasn't been done due to limited bandwidth for such clean-up of the code. For issue #2 we have had some internal discussions on the best way to handle compiler dependencies, and the suggestion I liked the most is similar to your suggestion below, but instead of having a single header file, having a compiler folder with each supported toolchain as a separate sub-folder, each defining their own version of tfm_compiler.h to provide the definitions required by TF-M. The compiler-specific cmake file can then simply point to the appropriate location for the compiler-specific inclusion, avoiding compiler-specific ifdef:s. Let me know your thoughts on this approach Thanks and kindest regards Miklos -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M Sent: 13 June 2019 16:11 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Feature request While working on porting TF-M to the IAR toolchain, I've run into a couple of issues I'd like to discuss. 1) The duplicated REGION/REGION_NAME/REGION_DECLARE macros. Why are these not defined in an include file instead of being defined in eight different c files? I see that they are also defined in spm_db.h, but that is only included in spm related files. 2) I suggest adding a toolchain related include file that should be included in every source file that is part of TF-M. This could be something similar to cmsis_compiler.h, where a toolchain vendor could add stuff that only relates to a specific toolchain. In our case that could include things like: --- #ifdef __ICCARM__ #define $$ZI$$Limit $$Limit #define $$ZI$$Base $$Base #define Image$$ #endif --- 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: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.iar.com&data=02… <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iar.co…> Twitter: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.twitter.com%2Fiarsy… <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twitte…> -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.tru… -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.tru…

7 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TF-M Cooperative Scheduler Design - Scheduling Rules

by Ken Liu (Arm Technology China)

Hi Ashu, The proposal is good and covers most of the cases while a NS and S communication channel is available. And I think below part is going to be considerate before we create design docs to follow this rules: - Leave the NSPE SPM_IDLE case handling as implementation defined instead of involving IRQ to bring more complexity. NSPE could just yield but SPE needs to support a bit asynchronization -- that is not a big fair compare to IRQ communication. - The rules rely on the NSPE/SPE communication channel but for if NSPE has no use/misuse this channel SPE should detect the problem and panic NSPE, this is also can to be implemented. Most of the interrupt priority related rules can be done with hardware setting. The priority of secure partition with IRQ needs to be considerate while partitions designing since in IPC model scheduler decides who should go based on partition priority. Let's see if we can find more cases while implementing. BR -Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ashutosh > Singh via TF-M > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 7:06 PM > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: [TF-M] TF-M Cooperative Scheduler Design - Scheduling Rules > > Hi, > > This is a proposal that introduces scheduling rules in TF-M. > Introduction: > On ArmV8-M CPUs, NSPE and SPE share the same physical processing > element(PE). A TF-M enabled system need to be able to handle asynchronous > events (interrupts) regardless of current security state of the PE; and that may > lead to scheduling decisions. This introduces significant complexity into TF-M. To > keep the integrity of (NSPE and SPE) schedulers and call paths between NSPE and > SPE, following set of rules are imposed on the TF-M scheduler design. > https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/tf_m/design/cooperative_scheduling/ > > Feedback welcome! > > Thanks, > Ashu > > > -- > TF-M mailing list > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

7 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Move configuration files into specified directory

by Ken Liu (Arm Technology China)

Hi, The patch has been pushed for a while and is going to be merged in one week, please help to review it if you planned but still not have a look: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/trusted-firmware-m/+/1234 After this patch get merged, all new configurations created in root directory will be rejected. Please create new configuration files under ./configs directory. The existing fake configuration files under root directory will be removed after CI setting changed. Thanks. -Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu > (Arm Technology China) via TF-M > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 1:40 PM > To: TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: [TF-M] [RFC] Move configuration files into specified directory > > Hi, > Since the number of configuration files is increasing, let’s move the > configuration files (ConfigXXXX.cmake) into specified directory. > This would reduces the files under root directory and makes the structure more > clearer. > > I have created the issue and patch for it: > https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/T394 > https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/trusted-firmware-m/+/1234 > > IMPORTANT NOTES: > To be compatible with the existing building configurations, the existing > configuration files have been forwarded into the corresponded configuration > file under ./configs. Which means there are two set of configuration files under > sources tree at current – but this will change soon. There is a warning while you > are building with root configurations files: “Please use the configs available in > the ./config sub-directory.” > > So please: > > - If you are planning to create new configuration, create it under ./configs > instead of root directory > - The reference of configuration files under root directory will be removed soon, > please change your build system setting to reference the configuration files put > under ./configs > > Any feedbacks please reply this mail or put comments under the issue, thanks > 😉 > > -Ken > > -- > TF-M mailing list > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

7 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Feature request

by Miklos Balint

Hi Thomas, I see no major issue with either suggestion, I think it makes sense to introduce improvements in these matters. For issue #1 it makes very much sense to have a shared header file for all components that rely on these definitions. I don't recall any reason why that should not be possible, it's simply something that hasn't been done due to limited bandwidth for such clean-up of the code. For issue #2 we have had some internal discussions on the best way to handle compiler dependencies, and the suggestion I liked the most is similar to your suggestion below, but instead of having a single header file, having a compiler folder with each supported toolchain as a separate sub-folder, each defining their own version of tfm_compiler.h to provide the definitions required by TF-M. The compiler-specific cmake file can then simply point to the appropriate location for the compiler-specific inclusion, avoiding compiler-specific ifdef:s. Let me know your thoughts on this approach Thanks and kindest regards Miklos -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Törnblom via TF-M Sent: 13 June 2019 16:11 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Feature request While working on porting TF-M to the IAR toolchain, I've run into a couple of issues I'd like to discuss. 1) The duplicated REGION/REGION_NAME/REGION_DECLARE macros. Why are these not defined in an include file instead of being defined in eight different c files? I see that they are also defined in spm_db.h, but that is only included in spm related files. 2) I suggest adding a toolchain related include file that should be included in every source file that is part of TF-M. This could be something similar to cmsis_compiler.h, where a toolchain vendor could add stuff that only relates to a specific toolchain. In our case that could include things like: --- #ifdef __ICCARM__ #define $$ZI$$Limit $$Limit #define $$ZI$$Base $$Base #define Image$$ #endif --- 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> -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

7 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken?

by Antonio De Angelis

Hi Andrej, Does this affect also any of the reference platforms (i.e. AN521)? If the same behaviour appears on a reference platform, it will suggest that is likely not related to platform code. It would be good if you can identify the EXACT commit that is giving you this problem, as we can't reproduce, so that we can have a look in detail to the source code. Thanks, Antonio -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: 14 June 2019 16:12 To: Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken? Just FYI: Downgraded to commit SHA-1: 25e2b2dba5d7eb3ba0da14384a6c8240278f5c15 (Crypto: Implement additional PSA Crypto APIs). It becomes much better, but finally goes to the assert in some time (tfm_thrd_context_switch:170). Will continue next week. The terminal log: Sec Thread] Secure image initializing! [Sec Thread] hello! this is ipc client test sp! [Sec Thread] Connect success! [Sec Thread] Call success! #### Execute test suites for the Secure area #### Running Test Suite PSA protected storage S interface tests (TFM_SST_TEST_2XXX)... > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2001' Description: 'Set interface' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2002' Description: 'Set interface with create flags' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2003' Description: 'Set interface with NULL data pointer' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2004' Description: 'Set interface with invalid data length' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2005' Description: 'Set interface with write once UID' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2006' Description: 'Get interface with valid data' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2007' Description: 'Get interface with zero data length' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2008' Description: 'Get interface with invalid UIDs' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2009' Description: 'Get interface with invalid data lengths and offsets' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2010' Description: 'Get interface with NULL data pointer' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2011' Description: 'Get info interface with write once UID' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2012' Description: 'Get info interface with valid UID' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2013' Description: 'Get info interface with invalid UIDs' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2014' Description: 'Get info interface with NULL info pointer' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2015' Description: 'Remove interface with valid UID' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2016' Description: 'Remove interface with write once UID' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2017' Description: 'Remove interface with invalid UID' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2018' Description: 'Block compaction after remove' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2019' Description: 'Multiple partial gets' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2020' Description: 'Multiple sets to same UID from same thread' TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2021' Description: 'Get support interface' TEST PASSED! TESTSUITE PASSED! Running Test Suite SST reliability tests (TFM_SST_TEST_3XXX)... > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_3001' Description: 'repetitive sets and gets in/from an asset' > Iteration 15 of 15 TEST PASSED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_3002' Description: 'repetitive sets, gets and removes' > Iteration 15 of 15 TEST PASSED! TESTSUITE PASSED! Running Test Suite Crypto secure interface tests (TFM_CRYPTO_TEST_5XXX)... > Executing 'TFM_CRYPTO_TEST_5001' Description: 'Secure Key management interface' Assert:tfm_thrd_context_switch:170 From: Andrej Butok Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 4:14 PM To: Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com> Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: RE: Is TFM_PSA_API broken? Hi Ken, > Please check your modification in SST partition No modifications from my side. As it becomes wasting of time, a debugging is not consistent and looks like uninitialized variable, stack or something else. I have decided to find a TFM commit which caused this abnormal behavior. So far, it occurs in a commit between: NOT WORKING: SHA-1: 122360ffb1e7278406183714249afefcb2184488 * Attest: Replace example asymmetric key-pair WORKING: SHA-1: 4743e6731b0fe8a00ceebfd74da098c7676ac6e0 * Crypto: Add IPC compatibility Thanks, Andrej From: Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) <mailto:Ken.Liu@arm.com> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 4:00 PM To: Andrej Butok <mailto:andrey.butok@nxp.com> Cc: mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org; nd <mailto:nd@arm.com> Subject: Re: Is TFM_PSA_API broken? Hi Andrej, As I said, that workaround only works for specified case. Debugging these failed cases with this patch applied will lead you into heavy core debugging. We need to find out the root cause, why the assert is triggered? There is no reason that all partitions go into block state, unless there are some improper modification in core or secure partitions. Please check your modification in SST partition, try to print something in your SST thread, to see why the thread keeps in block state. If a client calls psa_connect/psa_all, SPM would activate the partition into running state with function tfm_spm_send_event(). The correct call routine should be (psa_call has the similar routine): tfm_sst_test_2001->psa_connect->...->SVC_Handler->tfm_svcall_psa_connect->tfm_spm_send_event->....-> (your partition thread). Please remove the workaround patch, and try to debug to see if the call routine is correct. Thanks. -Ken ________________________________________ From: Andrej Butok <mailto:andrey.butok@nxp.com> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 8:13 PM To: Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) Cc: mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: RE: Is TFM_PSA_API broken? Hi Ken, Your patch/fix helped, so now there is no stuck in assert. But all regression tests are failed: #### Execute test suites for the Secure area #### Running Test Suite PSA protected storage S interface tests (TFM_SST_TEST_2XXX)... > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2001' Description: 'Set interface' Set should not fail with valid UID (Failed at ../../../../../../../middleware/tfm/test/suites/sst/secure/psa_ps_s_interface_testsuite.c:153) TEST FAILED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2002' Description: 'Set interface with create flags' Set should not fail with no flags (Failed at ../../../../../../../middleware/tfm/test/suites/sst/secure/psa_ps_s_interface_testsuite.c:199) TEST FAILED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2003' Description: 'Set interface with NULL data pointer' Set should succeed with NULL data pointer and zero length (Failed at ../../../../../../../middleware/tfm/test/suites/sst/secure/psa_ps_s_interface_testsuite.c:243) TEST FAILED! Will try to investigate... -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) via TF-M Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 10:32 AM To: mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <mailto:nd@arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken? Hi Andrej, tfm_thrd_context_switch() does not want to thread to be running is NULL. And actually it should never happen in existing implement unless IRQ is involved. Here is a patch for fixing this, but I am not sure if you are under the same case we met: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr… I am curious about your environment, at least one partition will be running in latest master branch. Can you share me your changes? Are your using original TF-M and which configuration file you are using? Thanks. -Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-M <mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf > Of Andrej Butok via TF-M > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 4:15 PM > To: Antonio De Angelis <mailto:Antonio.DeAngelis@arm.com> > Cc: mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org > Subject: Re: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken? > > Hi Antonio, > > > > So, I have disabled Platform and Log services. > > Also, TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION have to be undefined for IPC. Is > this correct? > > After that it becomes compliable. > > > > But when starting the regression tests, I am getting assert in > tfm_thrd_conext_switch(). Terminal log: > > > > [Sec Thread] Secure image initializing! > > > > NS code is running... > > > > #### Execute test suites for the Secure area #### > > Running Test Suite PSA protected storage S interface tests > (TFM_SST_TEST_2XXX)... > > > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2001' > > Description: 'Set interface' > > Assert:tfm_thrd_context_switch:170 > > > > So I am stuck now, and no matter what to use the IPC or the Function > API approach. > > Probably, something serious happened during last two weeks (before it > worked), may be in platform dependent code. > > NOTE: I am using a different platform LPC55S69 and IDE approach (not cmake). > > > > Any tips? > > > > Thanks, > > Andrej > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-M <mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf > Of Antonio De Angelis via TF-M > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 5:00 PM > To: mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <mailto:nd@arm.com> > Subject: Re: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken? > > > > Hi Andrej, > > > > "Should the Log and Platform services be disabled for IPC?" > > > > Yes, platform service and Audit Log service do not support IPC. You > can see from existing IPC - specific build configurations which flags > need to be set to make sure these two services are not built when IPC builds are selected. > > > > Thanks, > > Antonio > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: TF-M > <mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org%3cmailto:tf-m-%0b> > mailto:bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok > via TF-M > > Sent: 13 June 2019 15:46 > > To: > mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org%3cmailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmw > are.org> > > Subject: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken? > > > > Hello, > > > > I use absolutely the latest TF-M (SHA-1: > 81fb08cd66c1037a5e6c57e46ad5946bfc8a0d0e) > > > > I am trying to run the regression-test application using IPC API > (TFM_PSA_API is > defined) The application is compliable with errors: > > Error: L6218E: Undefined symbol tfm_spm_request_reset_vote (referred > from platform_sp.o). > > Error: L6218E: Undefined symbol tfm_core_get_caller_client_id > (referred from audit_core.o). > > Not enough information to list image symbols. > > > > It is caused by the fact that the platform and audit log services are > using the functions (printed in the log) which are not > available/disabled when TFM_PSA_API is defined. > > Is it known issue? > > Any suggestions? > > Should the Log and Platform services be disabled for IPC? > > > > Thanks, > > Andrej > > -- > > TF-M mailing list > > mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org%3cmailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmw > are.org> > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist > s.trust > edfirmware.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftf- > m&data=02%7C01%7Candrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C4416c02536e54d420 > bdc08d6f00fc1ff%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6369 > 60347799555976&sdata=1zhWkIyBjqiiTqtf0tYdtxRACLofQ%2B5Po6tC3cqW > Fis%3D&reserved=0 > > -- > > TF-M mailing list > > mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org%3cmailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmw > are.org> > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist > s.trust > edfirmware.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftf- > m&data=02%7C01%7Candrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C4416c02536e54d420 > bdc08d6f00fc1ff%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6369 > 60347799555976&sdata=1zhWkIyBjqiiTqtf0tYdtxRACLofQ%2B5Po6tC3cqW > Fis%3D&reserved=0 > -- > TF-M mailing list > mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist > s.trustedfirmware.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftf-m&data=02%7C01%7Ca > ndrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C441c81dc90a44fb5418408d6f0a2b68a%7C686ea1d3bc2 > b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636960978972859087&sdata=weHHf8wG3 > nlnTsI1JEA5Ww0D9sXSf4oJKyLkImmaCi8%3D&reserved=0 -- TF-M mailing list mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.tru… -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

7 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken?

by Andrej Butok

Hi Ken, Your patch/fix helped, so now there is no stuck in assert. But all regression tests are failed: #### Execute test suites for the Secure area #### Running Test Suite PSA protected storage S interface tests (TFM_SST_TEST_2XXX)... > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2001' Description: 'Set interface' Set should not fail with valid UID (Failed at ../../../../../../../middleware/tfm/test/suites/sst/secure/psa_ps_s_interface_testsuite.c:153) TEST FAILED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2002' Description: 'Set interface with create flags' Set should not fail with no flags (Failed at ../../../../../../../middleware/tfm/test/suites/sst/secure/psa_ps_s_interface_testsuite.c:199) TEST FAILED! > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2003' Description: 'Set interface with NULL data pointer' Set should succeed with NULL data pointer and zero length (Failed at ../../../../../../../middleware/tfm/test/suites/sst/secure/psa_ps_s_interface_testsuite.c:243) TEST FAILED! Will try to investigate... -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) via TF-M Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 10:32 AM To: TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken? Hi Andrej, tfm_thrd_context_switch() does not want to thread to be running is NULL. And actually it should never happen in existing implement unless IRQ is involved. Here is a patch for fixing this, but I am not sure if you are under the same case we met: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr… I am curious about your environment, at least one partition will be running in latest master branch. Can you share me your changes? Are your using original TF-M and which configuration file you are using? Thanks. -Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of > Andrej Butok via TF-M > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 4:15 PM > To: Antonio De Angelis <Antonio.DeAngelis(a)arm.com> > Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Subject: Re: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken? > > Hi Antonio, > > > > So, I have disabled Platform and Log services. > > Also, TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION have to be undefined for IPC. Is > this correct? > > After that it becomes compliable. > > > > But when starting the regression tests, I am getting assert in > tfm_thrd_conext_switch(). Terminal log: > > > > [Sec Thread] Secure image initializing! > > > > NS code is running... > > > > #### Execute test suites for the Secure area #### > > Running Test Suite PSA protected storage S interface tests > (TFM_SST_TEST_2XXX)... > > > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2001' > > Description: 'Set interface' > > Assert:tfm_thrd_context_switch:170 > > > > So I am stuck now, and no matter what to use the IPC or the Function > API approach. > > Probably, something serious happened during last two weeks (before it > worked), may be in platform dependent code. > > NOTE: I am using a different platform LPC55S69 and IDE approach (not cmake). > > > > Any tips? > > > > Thanks, > > Andrej > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of > Antonio De Angelis via TF-M > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 5:00 PM > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: Re: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken? > > > > Hi Andrej, > > > > "Should the Log and Platform services be disabled for IPC?" > > > > Yes, platform service and Audit Log service do not support IPC. You > can see from existing IPC - specific build configurations which flags > need to be set to make sure these two services are not built when IPC builds are selected. > > > > Thanks, > > Antonio > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m- > bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M > > Sent: 13 June 2019 15:46 > > To: > tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> > > Subject: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken? > > > > Hello, > > > > I use absolutely the latest TF-M (SHA-1: > 81fb08cd66c1037a5e6c57e46ad5946bfc8a0d0e) > > > > I am trying to run the regression-test application using IPC API > (TFM_PSA_API is > defined) The application is compliable with errors: > > Error: L6218E: Undefined symbol tfm_spm_request_reset_vote (referred > from platform_sp.o). > > Error: L6218E: Undefined symbol tfm_core_get_caller_client_id > (referred from audit_core.o). > > Not enough information to list image symbols. > > > > It is caused by the fact that the platform and audit log services are > using the functions (printed in the log) which are not > available/disabled when TFM_PSA_API is defined. > > Is it known issue? > > Any suggestions? > > Should the Log and Platform services be disabled for IPC? > > > > Thanks, > > Andrej > > -- > > TF-M mailing list > > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist > s.trust > edfirmware.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftf- > m&data=02%7C01%7Candrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C4416c02536e54d420 > bdc08d6f00fc1ff%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6369 > 60347799555976&sdata=1zhWkIyBjqiiTqtf0tYdtxRACLofQ%2B5Po6tC3cqW > Fis%3D&reserved=0 > > -- > > TF-M mailing list > > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist > s.trust > edfirmware.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftf- > m&data=02%7C01%7Candrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C4416c02536e54d420 > bdc08d6f00fc1ff%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6369 > 60347799555976&sdata=1zhWkIyBjqiiTqtf0tYdtxRACLofQ%2B5Po6tC3cqW > Fis%3D&reserved=0 > -- > TF-M mailing list > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist > s.trustedfirmware.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftf-m&data=02%7C01%7Ca > ndrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C441c81dc90a44fb5418408d6f0a2b68a%7C686ea1d3bc2 > b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636960978972859087&sdata=weHHf8wG3 > nlnTsI1JEA5Ww0D9sXSf4oJKyLkImmaCi8%3D&reserved=0 -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.tru…

7 years

2
3
0 0

T398: Initial support for IAR Embedded Workbench for Arm tool chain

by Thomas Törnblom

I have just created T398 for integrating source cleanup to improve portability. I have just pushed a patch for review. /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>

7 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Contribution guide, where?

by Kevin Townsend

Hi Thomas, It's a bit slim, but I assume you noticed this but are looking for further details? https://git.trustedfirmware.org/trusted-firmware-m.git/tree/contributing.rst Best regards, Kevin On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 13:10, Thomas Törnblom via TF-M < tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > I'm about to submit a set of cleanup patches but have not been able to > find the contribution guide. > > Most of the useful documentation I've found seems to be related to TF-A. > > So where is it? > > /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> > -- > TF-M mailing list > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m >

7 years

1
0
0 0

Contribution guide, where?

by Thomas Törnblom

I'm about to submit a set of cleanup patches but have not been able to find the contribution guide. Most of the useful documentation I've found seems to be related to TF-A. So where is it? /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>

7 years

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken?

by Ken Liu (Arm Technology China)

Hi Andrej, tfm_thrd_context_switch() does not want to thread to be running is NULL. And actually it should never happen in existing implement unless IRQ is involved. Here is a patch for fixing this, but I am not sure if you are under the same case we met: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/trusted-firmware-m/+/959 I am curious about your environment, at least one partition will be running in latest master branch. Can you share me your changes? Are your using original TF-M and which configuration file you are using? Thanks. -Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrej > Butok via TF-M > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 4:15 PM > To: Antonio De Angelis <Antonio.DeAngelis(a)arm.com> > Cc: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Subject: Re: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken? > > Hi Antonio, > > > > So, I have disabled Platform and Log services. > > Also, TFM_NS_CLIENT_IDENTIFICATION have to be undefined for IPC. Is this > correct? > > After that it becomes compliable. > > > > But when starting the regression tests, I am getting assert in > tfm_thrd_conext_switch(). Terminal log: > > > > [Sec Thread] Secure image initializing! > > > > NS code is running... > > > > #### Execute test suites for the Secure area #### > > Running Test Suite PSA protected storage S interface tests > (TFM_SST_TEST_2XXX)... > > > Executing 'TFM_SST_TEST_2001' > > Description: 'Set interface' > > Assert:tfm_thrd_context_switch:170 > > > > So I am stuck now, and no matter what to use the IPC or the Function API > approach. > > Probably, something serious happened during last two weeks (before it worked), > may be in platform dependent code. > > NOTE: I am using a different platform LPC55S69 and IDE approach (not cmake). > > > > Any tips? > > > > Thanks, > > Andrej > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Antonio De > Angelis via TF-M > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 5:00 PM > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: Re: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken? > > > > Hi Andrej, > > > > "Should the Log and Platform services be disabled for IPC?" > > > > Yes, platform service and Audit Log service do not support IPC. You can see from > existing IPC - specific build configurations which flags need to be set to make > sure these two services are not built when IPC builds are selected. > > > > Thanks, > > Antonio > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m- > bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M > > Sent: 13 June 2019 15:46 > > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> > > Subject: [TF-M] Is TFM_PSA_API broken? > > > > Hello, > > > > I use absolutely the latest TF-M (SHA-1: > 81fb08cd66c1037a5e6c57e46ad5946bfc8a0d0e) > > > > I am trying to run the regression-test application using IPC API (TFM_PSA_API is > defined) The application is compliable with errors: > > Error: L6218E: Undefined symbol tfm_spm_request_reset_vote (referred from > platform_sp.o). > > Error: L6218E: Undefined symbol tfm_core_get_caller_client_id (referred from > audit_core.o). > > Not enough information to list image symbols. > > > > It is caused by the fact that the platform and audit log services are using the > functions (printed in the log) which are not available/disabled when > TFM_PSA_API is defined. > > Is it known issue? > > Any suggestions? > > Should the Log and Platform services be disabled for IPC? > > > > Thanks, > > Andrej > > -- > > TF-M mailing list > > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.tru… > edfirmware.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftf- > m&data=02%7C01%7Candrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C4416c02536e54d420 > bdc08d6f00fc1ff%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6369 > 60347799555976&sdata=1zhWkIyBjqiiTqtf0tYdtxRACLofQ%2B5Po6tC3cqW > Fis%3D&reserved=0 > > -- > > TF-M mailing list > > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.tru… > edfirmware.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftf- > m&data=02%7C01%7Candrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C4416c02536e54d420 > bdc08d6f00fc1ff%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C6369 > 60347799555976&sdata=1zhWkIyBjqiiTqtf0tYdtxRACLofQ%2B5Po6tC3cqW > Fis%3D&reserved=0 > -- > TF-M mailing list > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

7 years

1
0
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M