- TF-M - lists.trustedfirmware.org

Re: [TF-M] Please explain tfm_register_client_id() use case

by Miklos Balint

Alan, You are absolutely right that registering client ID should normally be done once, preferably right after AllocModule. The current design allows multiple updates to be made, and for this to be possible, we identify the one to be updated by it being the active one. I do see an opportunity to extend this so that the last NS context to be Allocated can also be assumed to be the target of a registration in lieu of the active context if there isn't one. This way we keep the option to update ID when a context is active while also allow an easy and low overhead registration for the context that's latest to have been Allocated. Is this an acceptable amendment? Regards Miklos -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of DeMars, Alan via TF-M Sent: 26 March 2019 00:00 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] Please explain tfm_register_client_id() use case As currently specified, I don't see a simple way to invoke the tfm_register_client_id() API ONLY ONCE for each NS client thread. It appears that tfm_register_client_id() must be called after TZ_LoadContext_S() because the clientId provided by tfm_register_client_id() is always associated with the CURRENT NS MemoryId. However, TZ_LoadContext_S() is designed to be called only when the NS OS actually switches to a new NS thread. This creates pressure for tfm_register_client_id() to be called during a NS thread switch. However, calling tfm_register_client_id() on EVERY NS context switch is redundant and CPU wasteful. Adding code to test whether tfm_register_client_id() has already been called for a particular NS thread also seems wasteful. What seems natural to me is to add a MemoryId argument to tfm_register_client_id() so that the clientID can be mapped to the MemoryId provided by TZ_AllocModuleContext_S() right after TZ_AllocModuleContext_S() is called (ie only once). Please correct my understanding of how tfm_register_client_id() is intended to be used if the above analysis is off base. Alan -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

7 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] SYSTICK ownership

by Ken Liu (Arm Technology China)

Hi Alan, Sorry for the late response - the secure IRQ patches are on the way but currently we don't have scenarios for this case. We would create a ticket for tracking this question and let's collect comment there. And, this topic sounds like a timer requirement, so can you tell the actual user scenario? For example, would there still be requirements of using SYSTICK in secure partition if some timer things is available? Thanks. -Ken -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of DeMars, Alan via TF-M Sent: 19 February 2019 02:47 To: Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com<mailto:Ken.Liu@arm.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: [TF-M] SYSTICK ownership My concern was the value one would provide for the "line_num" field within the manifest. The SYSTICK uses vector 15 which I believe would correspond to "line_num" = -1. I'm not sure the design accommodates negative line_nums. Also, disabling the SYSTICK interrupt while servicing its interrupt can't be handled in the normal way user IRQs are disabled. Special case code would be required in the SPM to support the SYSTICK as a secure partition interrupt. Alan -----Original Message----- From: TF-M [mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org] On Behalf Of Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) via TF-M Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 5:34 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> Cc: nd Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TF-M] SYSTICK ownership Hi Alan, >From your description, it looks like you want to use secure SYSTICK as an interrupt for Secure Partition, is this correct? In this case, it is similar to the secure interrupt usage. Since the interrupt handling is under developing, I will add a note in the task to remind how we could add SYSTICK as an interrupt in the manifest. BR -Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m-bounces@lists.trustedfirmware.org>> On Behalf Of > DeMars, Alan via TF-M > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 7:02 AM > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> > Subject: [TF-M] SYSTICK ownership > > If not used anywhere else, can a Secure Partition own the secure > SYSTICK timer and its interrupt? > If so, how is it specified in the SP manifest? > > Alan > -- > TF-M mailing list > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:TF-M@lists.trustedfirmware.org> > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

7 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TFM Core regression tests

by Andrej Butok

Hi Mate, OK. It's good to know that this is the known issue. I will wait for a final review and merge. Thanks, Andrej -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Mate Toth-Pal via TF-M Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 2:45 PM To: TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] TFM Core regression tests Hi Andrej, Yes, on the master branch this is a limitation. I already have a few patches on review to fix this: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr… https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freview.tr… They are most probably going to be merged with the secure IRQ handling commits. You can also cherry pick those for yourself for testing purposes, there should be no conflict, as it is quite independent from the parent commits on review. Regards, Mate -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: 27 March 2019 14:32 To: TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] TFM Core regression tests Hello We are trying to enable & compile TFM Core tests. But it looks like they are only for MPS2 platform: 1) tfm_ss_core_test.c: .... #include "smm_mps2.h" ... static psa_status_t test_peripheral_access(void) { struct arm_mps2_fpgaio_t *fpgaio = SEC_MPS2_FPGAIO; ... etc. 2) tfm_partition_list.inc ... #ifdef TFM_PARTITION_TEST_CORE ... PARTITION_ADD_PERIPHERAL(TFM_SP_CORE_TEST, TFM_PERIPHERAL_FPGA_IO); #endif /* TFM_PARTITION_TEST_CORE */ ... What do you suggest ? What is the plan? Should we to skip/ignore the TFM Core regression tests now? Thanks Andrej Butok SW Tech Lead Security & Connectivity, Microcontrollers NXP Semiconductors -- 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, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] TFM Core regression tests

by Mate Toth-Pal

Hi Andrej, Yes, on the master branch this is a limitation. I already have a few patches on review to fix this: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/#/c/trusted-firmware-m/+/693/10 https://review.trustedfirmware.org/#/c/trusted-firmware-m/+/683/11 They are most probably going to be merged with the secure IRQ handling commits. You can also cherry pick those for yourself for testing purposes, there should be no conflict, as it is quite independent from the parent commits on review. Regards, Mate -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: 27 March 2019 14:32 To: TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: [TF-M] TFM Core regression tests Hello We are trying to enable & compile TFM Core tests. But it looks like they are only for MPS2 platform: 1) tfm_ss_core_test.c: .... #include "smm_mps2.h" ... static psa_status_t test_peripheral_access(void) { struct arm_mps2_fpgaio_t *fpgaio = SEC_MPS2_FPGAIO; ... etc. 2) tfm_partition_list.inc ... #ifdef TFM_PARTITION_TEST_CORE ... PARTITION_ADD_PERIPHERAL(TFM_SP_CORE_TEST, TFM_PERIPHERAL_FPGA_IO); #endif /* TFM_PARTITION_TEST_CORE */ ... What do you suggest ? What is the plan? Should we to skip/ignore the TFM Core regression tests now? Thanks Andrej Butok SW Tech Lead Security & Connectivity, Microcontrollers NXP Semiconductors -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

7 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

TFM Core regression tests

by Andrej Butok

Hello We are trying to enable & compile TFM Core tests. But it looks like they are only for MPS2 platform: 1) tfm_ss_core_test.c: .... #include "smm_mps2.h" ... static psa_status_t test_peripheral_access(void) { struct arm_mps2_fpgaio_t *fpgaio = SEC_MPS2_FPGAIO; ... etc. 2) tfm_partition_list.inc ... #ifdef TFM_PARTITION_TEST_CORE ... PARTITION_ADD_PERIPHERAL(TFM_SP_CORE_TEST, TFM_PERIPHERAL_FPGA_IO); #endif /* TFM_PARTITION_TEST_CORE */ ... What do you suggest ? What is the plan? Should we to skip/ignore the TFM Core regression tests now? Thanks Andrej Butok SW Tech Lead Security & Connectivity, Microcontrollers NXP Semiconductors

7 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M

by Andrej Butok

Thank you, Antonio Looking forward for the 100% Crypto Service usage, it will solve the mbedTLS duplication issue. -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Antonio De Angelis via TF-M Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 4:37 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M Hi, Regarding the below: > Why the TFM services (SST, attestation) do not call PSA Crypto API? Attestation already calls the PSA Crypto APIs, and we are working actively on implementing the crypto bindings for SST to call the corresponding PSA Crypto API's. Thanks, Antonio -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Wang (Arm Technology China) via TF-M Sent: 26 March 2019 08:18 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M Hi Andrej, Yes, I agree this is a useful design to mitigate the code size issue. Just sharing the advice from security perspective. Basically, we need to review the shared libs carefully(one of the focus of threat modelling). It's not a mandatory limit. From PSA FF spec v1.0 beta1 section 3.1.4 (Mandatory isolation rules) and 3.1.5 (Optional isolation rules), it's OK to have the shared RO code sections. It doesn't break the mandatory isolation rule I3 - If domain A needs protection from domain B, then Private data in domain A cannot be accessed by domain B. But it's worth to notice/mention that this will break optional isolation rules I4 and I5. I4 - If domain A needs protection from domain B, then Code and Constant data in domain A is not readable or executable by domain B. I5 - Code in a domain is not executable by any other domain. It makes sense to give the choice to the users. (may notify the user about the potential security risk) > Why the TFM services (SST, attestation) do not call PSA Crypto API? I think the experts of the modules might be more suitable than me to answer this question. 😊 Thanks. Hi @Ken Liu (Arm Technology China), I got your reply in another thread, so just to gather them here. >For first point, we can take a security analysis on this part and check if there are vulnerabilities. >The security requirement for these code are quite high, you can take 'memset' as example, it is read-only, caller stack based so no footprint would leave to another caller. Yes, like I mentioned above it's one of the focus of threat modelling. >For seconds point, it is do-able -- but need big change everywhere; and it back to the per-partition library design while we move to isolation level 3. Understand. Just thinking if we can keep the shared libs in the same protection domain. (to avoid breaking optional isolation rules) BTW, from PSA FF spec v1.0 beta1 section 3.1.2(memory access rules) rule l1, we may need to consider the separation of RO-Code and RO-data(execution never). Thanks. Regards, David Wang Arm Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Phone: +86-21-6154 9142 (ext. 59142) -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 7:04 PM To: TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M Hi David, > Using shared libraries may give the window to exploit the vulnerabilities. Yes, you are right. BUT Code size may be a very critical parameter especially for constrained MCUs. Please do not give any mandatory limits. If any, they should be configurable. Let's give a possibility to choose for final users. BTW: 1) Current TF-M is using library approach with mbedTLS copy per each service. OK, security => but wasting of resources. In our code, we are using one copy of mbedTLS to avoid this type of wasting, but it requires original code modification. Please, give more freedom to final TFM users! 2) Why the TFM services (SST, attestation) do not call PSA Crypto API? It will eliminates mbedTLS duplication. Thanks, Andrej -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Wang (Arm Technology China) via TF-M Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 10:57 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M Hi Ken, Some comments from security review's perspective. * Using shared libraries may give the window to exploit the vulnerabilities. App RoT can analyze the shared lib to find out the useable vulnerabilities for attacking PSA RoT. * Is it a good idea to have two separate shared libs - one for all app RoT and one for all PSA RoT for isolation level2? (can still share one copy for level1.) Regards, David Wang Arm Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Phone: +86-21-6154 9142 (ext. 59142) -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) via TF-M Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 5:05 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M Hi, The document is updated due to a change in MPU regions part: In original design, some partition libraries like 'thread_exit' is going to be linked with partition statically, which means there would be multiple copies of these libraries for each partition. This provided strict protection of isolation but it looks over-protect. If we keep one shared code region for each partition to call these libraries, we could: * Save memory * The protection is enough if we mark the code area as read-only. In this case, the unprivileged code and RO region needs to be kept and these shared codes could be put there. The requirement of these codes are: * These codes must be thread safe and reentrant * These codes must be put in read-only region The change mainly happen under section "Linker script sections re-arrangement". Please help to comment. 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: Thursday, March 21, 2019 3:20 PM > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M > > Hi, > The document is updated, and keep open for comments ; ) > > The updated content is: > > 1. Available MPU regions for peripheral has number limitation based > on platform. If a SP needs many un-continuous peripheral registers and > the number exceeds available MPU number, it needs further investigation. > 2. Rely on linker to clean the unused object files instead of > remove them in scatter before the dependency is fully figured out. > > Thanks! > > -Ken > > From: Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:44 PM > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M > > Hello, > The first IPC implementation works under isolation level 1. The high > isolation levels need to be there to get compatible with PSA Firmware > Framework. A design document is created about implementing isolation level 2 for IPC model: > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeve > loper.trustedfirmware.org%2Fw%2Ftf_m%2Fdesign%2Ftrusted_firmware-& > data=02%7C01%7Candrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C6a9c2cb6a5034aec48b908d6b10845 > 48%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636891046406628979&amp > ;sdata=yPus0lkd4L71ng5Z5o2hu2bDEMBAzSwUxAm1fyYf564%3D&reserved=0 > m_isolation_level_2/ > > The mainly change of isolation level 2 compare to isolation level 1 is: > * Put AppRoT Secure Partitions' components with same attribute (code, > read- only data, read-write data) into the same region, which helps > MPU setting region attributes. > * Change Secure Partition privileged setting based on Secure Partition > type while scheduling. > * Change mechanism of privileged API, such as printf. > > If you have any comments please share it. You can reply in mailing > list if there is no place for putting comments on the page. > > Thank you! > > -Ken > > -- > 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%7C6a9c2cb6a5034aec48b908d6b1084548%7C686ea1d3bc2 > b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636891046406638984&sdata=7Wva1R6Lv > EKMxCpaVr6gRE26Fodub%2FPTQlLOiB2YvX0%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… -- 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… -- 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, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M

by Antonio De Angelis

Hi, Regarding the below: > Why the TFM services (SST, attestation) do not call PSA Crypto API? Attestation already calls the PSA Crypto APIs, and we are working actively on implementing the crypto bindings for SST to call the corresponding PSA Crypto API's. Thanks, Antonio -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Wang (Arm Technology China) via TF-M Sent: 26 March 2019 08:18 To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org; Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) <Ken.Liu(a)arm.com> Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M Hi Andrej, Yes, I agree this is a useful design to mitigate the code size issue. Just sharing the advice from security perspective. Basically, we need to review the shared libs carefully(one of the focus of threat modelling). It's not a mandatory limit. From PSA FF spec v1.0 beta1 section 3.1.4 (Mandatory isolation rules) and 3.1.5 (Optional isolation rules), it's OK to have the shared RO code sections. It doesn't break the mandatory isolation rule I3 - If domain A needs protection from domain B, then Private data in domain A cannot be accessed by domain B. But it's worth to notice/mention that this will break optional isolation rules I4 and I5. I4 - If domain A needs protection from domain B, then Code and Constant data in domain A is not readable or executable by domain B. I5 - Code in a domain is not executable by any other domain. It makes sense to give the choice to the users. (may notify the user about the potential security risk) > Why the TFM services (SST, attestation) do not call PSA Crypto API? I think the experts of the modules might be more suitable than me to answer this question. 😊 Thanks. Hi @Ken Liu (Arm Technology China), I got your reply in another thread, so just to gather them here. >For first point, we can take a security analysis on this part and check if there are vulnerabilities. >The security requirement for these code are quite high, you can take 'memset' as example, it is read-only, caller stack based so no footprint would leave to another caller. Yes, like I mentioned above it's one of the focus of threat modelling. >For seconds point, it is do-able -- but need big change everywhere; and it back to the per-partition library design while we move to isolation level 3. Understand. Just thinking if we can keep the shared libs in the same protection domain. (to avoid breaking optional isolation rules) BTW, from PSA FF spec v1.0 beta1 section 3.1.2(memory access rules) rule l1, we may need to consider the separation of RO-Code and RO-data(execution never). Thanks. Regards, David Wang Arm Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Phone: +86-21-6154 9142 (ext. 59142) -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 7:04 PM To: TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M Hi David, > Using shared libraries may give the window to exploit the vulnerabilities. Yes, you are right. BUT Code size may be a very critical parameter especially for constrained MCUs. Please do not give any mandatory limits. If any, they should be configurable. Let's give a possibility to choose for final users. BTW: 1) Current TF-M is using library approach with mbedTLS copy per each service. OK, security => but wasting of resources. In our code, we are using one copy of mbedTLS to avoid this type of wasting, but it requires original code modification. Please, give more freedom to final TFM users! 2) Why the TFM services (SST, attestation) do not call PSA Crypto API? It will eliminates mbedTLS duplication. Thanks, Andrej -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Wang (Arm Technology China) via TF-M Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 10:57 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M Hi Ken, Some comments from security review's perspective. * Using shared libraries may give the window to exploit the vulnerabilities. App RoT can analyze the shared lib to find out the useable vulnerabilities for attacking PSA RoT. * Is it a good idea to have two separate shared libs - one for all app RoT and one for all PSA RoT for isolation level2? (can still share one copy for level1.) Regards, David Wang Arm Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Phone: +86-21-6154 9142 (ext. 59142) -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) via TF-M Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 5:05 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M Hi, The document is updated due to a change in MPU regions part: In original design, some partition libraries like 'thread_exit' is going to be linked with partition statically, which means there would be multiple copies of these libraries for each partition. This provided strict protection of isolation but it looks over-protect. If we keep one shared code region for each partition to call these libraries, we could: * Save memory * The protection is enough if we mark the code area as read-only. In this case, the unprivileged code and RO region needs to be kept and these shared codes could be put there. The requirement of these codes are: * These codes must be thread safe and reentrant * These codes must be put in read-only region The change mainly happen under section "Linker script sections re-arrangement". Please help to comment. 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: Thursday, March 21, 2019 3:20 PM > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M > > Hi, > The document is updated, and keep open for comments ; ) > > The updated content is: > > 1. Available MPU regions for peripheral has number limitation based > on platform. If a SP needs many un-continuous peripheral registers and > the number exceeds available MPU number, it needs further investigation. > 2. Rely on linker to clean the unused object files instead of > remove them in scatter before the dependency is fully figured out. > > Thanks! > > -Ken > > From: Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:44 PM > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M > > Hello, > The first IPC implementation works under isolation level 1. The high > isolation levels need to be there to get compatible with PSA Firmware > Framework. A design document is created about implementing isolation level 2 for IPC model: > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeve > loper.trustedfirmware.org%2Fw%2Ftf_m%2Fdesign%2Ftrusted_firmware-& > data=02%7C01%7Candrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C6a9c2cb6a5034aec48b908d6b10845 > 48%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636891046406628979&amp > ;sdata=yPus0lkd4L71ng5Z5o2hu2bDEMBAzSwUxAm1fyYf564%3D&reserved=0 > m_isolation_level_2/ > > The mainly change of isolation level 2 compare to isolation level 1 is: > * Put AppRoT Secure Partitions' components with same attribute (code, > read- only data, read-write data) into the same region, which helps > MPU setting region attributes. > * Change Secure Partition privileged setting based on Secure Partition > type while scheduling. > * Change mechanism of privileged API, such as printf. > > If you have any comments please share it. You can reply in mailing > list if there is no place for putting comments on the page. > > Thank you! > > -Ken > > -- > 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%7C6a9c2cb6a5034aec48b908d6b1084548%7C686ea1d3bc2 > b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636891046406638984&sdata=7Wva1R6Lv > EKMxCpaVr6gRE26Fodub%2FPTQlLOiB2YvX0%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… -- 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://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m -- TF-M mailing list TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

7 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M

by David Wang (Arm Technology China)

Hi Andrej, Yes, I agree this is a useful design to mitigate the code size issue. Just sharing the advice from security perspective. Basically, we need to review the shared libs carefully(one of the focus of threat modelling). It's not a mandatory limit. From PSA FF spec v1.0 beta1 section 3.1.4 (Mandatory isolation rules) and 3.1.5 (Optional isolation rules), it's OK to have the shared RO code sections. It doesn't break the mandatory isolation rule I3 - If domain A needs protection from domain B, then Private data in domain A cannot be accessed by domain B. But it's worth to notice/mention that this will break optional isolation rules I4 and I5. I4 - If domain A needs protection from domain B, then Code and Constant data in domain A is not readable or executable by domain B. I5 - Code in a domain is not executable by any other domain. It makes sense to give the choice to the users. (may notify the user about the potential security risk) > Why the TFM services (SST, attestation) do not call PSA Crypto API? I think the experts of the modules might be more suitable than me to answer this question. 😊 Thanks. Hi @Ken Liu (Arm Technology China), I got your reply in another thread, so just to gather them here. >For first point, we can take a security analysis on this part and check if there are vulnerabilities. >The security requirement for these code are quite high, you can take 'memset' as example, it is read-only, caller stack based so no footprint would leave to another caller. Yes, like I mentioned above it's one of the focus of threat modelling. >For seconds point, it is do-able -- but need big change everywhere; and it back to the per-partition library design while we move to isolation level 3. Understand. Just thinking if we can keep the shared libs in the same protection domain. (to avoid breaking optional isolation rules) BTW, from PSA FF spec v1.0 beta1 section 3.1.2(memory access rules) rule l1, we may need to consider the separation of RO-Code and RO-data(execution never). Thanks. Regards, David Wang Arm Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Phone: +86-21-6154 9142 (ext. 59142) -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Andrej Butok via TF-M Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 7:04 PM To: TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M Hi David, > Using shared libraries may give the window to exploit the vulnerabilities. Yes, you are right. BUT Code size may be a very critical parameter especially for constrained MCUs. Please do not give any mandatory limits. If any, they should be configurable. Let's give a possibility to choose for final users. BTW: 1) Current TF-M is using library approach with mbedTLS copy per each service. OK, security => but wasting of resources. In our code, we are using one copy of mbedTLS to avoid this type of wasting, but it requires original code modification. Please, give more freedom to final TFM users! 2) Why the TFM services (SST, attestation) do not call PSA Crypto API? It will eliminates mbedTLS duplication. Thanks, Andrej -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David Wang (Arm Technology China) via TF-M Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 10:57 AM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M Hi Ken, Some comments from security review's perspective. * Using shared libraries may give the window to exploit the vulnerabilities. App RoT can analyze the shared lib to find out the useable vulnerabilities for attacking PSA RoT. * Is it a good idea to have two separate shared libs - one for all app RoT and one for all PSA RoT for isolation level2? (can still share one copy for level1.) Regards, David Wang Arm Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Phone: +86-21-6154 9142 (ext. 59142) -----Original Message----- From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) via TF-M Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 5:05 PM To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M Hi, The document is updated due to a change in MPU regions part: In original design, some partition libraries like 'thread_exit' is going to be linked with partition statically, which means there would be multiple copies of these libraries for each partition. This provided strict protection of isolation but it looks over-protect. If we keep one shared code region for each partition to call these libraries, we could: * Save memory * The protection is enough if we mark the code area as read-only. In this case, the unprivileged code and RO region needs to be kept and these shared codes could be put there. The requirement of these codes are: * These codes must be thread safe and reentrant * These codes must be put in read-only region The change mainly happen under section "Linker script sections re-arrangement". Please help to comment. 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: Thursday, March 21, 2019 3:20 PM > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M > > Hi, > The document is updated, and keep open for comments ; ) > > The updated content is: > > 1. Available MPU regions for peripheral has number limitation based > on platform. If a SP needs many un-continuous peripheral registers and > the number exceeds available MPU number, it needs further investigation. > 2. Rely on linker to clean the unused object files instead of > remove them in scatter before the dependency is fully figured out. > > Thanks! > > -Ken > > From: Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:44 PM > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M > > Hello, > The first IPC implementation works under isolation level 1. The high > isolation levels need to be there to get compatible with PSA Firmware > Framework. A design document is created about implementing isolation level 2 for IPC model: > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdeve > loper.trustedfirmware.org%2Fw%2Ftf_m%2Fdesign%2Ftrusted_firmware-& > data=02%7C01%7Candrey.butok%40nxp.com%7C6a9c2cb6a5034aec48b908d6b10845 > 48%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636891046406628979&amp > ;sdata=yPus0lkd4L71ng5Z5o2hu2bDEMBAzSwUxAm1fyYf564%3D&reserved=0 > m_isolation_level_2/ > > The mainly change of isolation level 2 compare to isolation level 1 is: > * Put AppRoT Secure Partitions' components with same attribute (code, > read- only data, read-write data) into the same region, which helps > MPU setting region attributes. > * Change Secure Partition privileged setting based on Secure Partition > type while scheduling. > * Change mechanism of privileged API, such as printf. > > If you have any comments please share it. You can reply in mailing > list if there is no place for putting comments on the page. > > Thank you! > > -Ken > > -- > 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%7C6a9c2cb6a5034aec48b908d6b1084548%7C686ea1d3bc2 > b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636891046406638984&sdata=7Wva1R6Lv > EKMxCpaVr6gRE26Fodub%2FPTQlLOiB2YvX0%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… -- 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://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

7 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M

by Ken Liu (Arm Technology China)

Hi, For first point, we can take a security analysis on this part and check if there are vulnerabilities. The security requirement for these code are quite high, you can take 'memset' as example, it is read-only, caller stack based so no footprint would leave to another caller. For seconds point, it is do-able -- but need big change everywhere; and it back to the per-partition library design while we move to isolation level 3. -Ken > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of David > Wang (Arm Technology China) via TF-M > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 5:57 PM > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M > > Hi Ken, > Some comments from security review's perspective. > * Using shared libraries may give the window to exploit the vulnerabilities. App > RoT can analyze the shared lib to find out the useable vulnerabilities for > attacking PSA RoT. > * Is it a good idea to have two separate shared libs - one for all app RoT and one > for all PSA RoT for isolation level2? (can still share one copy for level1.) > > Regards, > David Wang > Arm Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd > Phone: +86-21-6154 9142 (ext. 59142) > > -----Original Message----- > From: TF-M <tf-m-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> On Behalf Of Ken Liu > (Arm Technology China) via TF-M > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 5:05 PM > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M > > Hi, > > The document is updated due to a change in MPU regions part: > > In original design, some partition libraries like 'thread_exit' is going to be linked > with partition statically, which means there would be multiple copies of these > libraries for each partition. This provided strict protection of isolation but it > looks over-protect. > > If we keep one shared code region for each partition to call these libraries, we > could: > * Save memory > * The protection is enough if we mark the code area as read-only. > > In this case, the unprivileged code and RO region needs to be kept and these > shared codes could be put there. > The requirement of these codes are: > * These codes must be thread safe and reentrant > * These codes must be put in read-only region > > The change mainly happen under section "Linker script sections re-arrangement". > Please help to comment. > > 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: Thursday, March 21, 2019 3:20 PM > > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > > Subject: Re: [TF-M] [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M > > > > Hi, > > The document is updated, and keep open for comments ; ) > > > > The updated content is: > > > > 1. Available MPU regions for peripheral has number limitation based > > on platform. If a SP needs many un-continuous peripheral registers and > > the number exceeds available MPU number, it needs further investigation. > > 2. Rely on linker to clean the unused object files instead of > > remove them in scatter before the dependency is fully figured out. > > > > Thanks! > > > > -Ken > > > > From: Ken Liu (Arm Technology China) > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:44 PM > > To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > > Cc: nd <nd(a)arm.com> > > Subject: [RFC] Design document of isolation level 2 on TF-M > > > > Hello, > > The first IPC implementation works under isolation level 1. The high > > isolation levels need to be there to get compatible with PSA Firmware > > Framework. A design document is created about implementing isolation level 2 > for IPC model: > > https://developer.trustedfirmware.org/w/tf_m/design/trusted_firmware- > > m_isolation_level_2/ > > > > The mainly change of isolation level 2 compare to isolation level 1 is: > > * Put AppRoT Secure Partitions' components with same attribute (code, > > read- only data, read-write data) into the same region, which helps > > MPU setting region attributes. > > * Change Secure Partition privileged setting based on Secure Partition > > type while scheduling. > > * Change mechanism of privileged API, such as printf. > > > > If you have any comments please share it. You can reply in mailing > > list if there is no place for putting comments on the page. > > > > Thank you! > > > > -Ken > > > > -- > > TF-M mailing list > > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m > -- > TF-M mailing list > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m > -- > TF-M mailing list > TF-M(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-m

7 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Please explain tfm_register_client_id() use case

by DeMars, Alan

As currently specified, I don't see a simple way to invoke the tfm_register_client_id() API ONLY ONCE for each NS client thread. It appears that tfm_register_client_id() must be called after TZ_LoadContext_S() because the clientId provided by tfm_register_client_id() is always associated with the CURRENT NS MemoryId. However, TZ_LoadContext_S() is designed to be called only when the NS OS actually switches to a new NS thread. This creates pressure for tfm_register_client_id() to be called during a NS thread switch. However, calling tfm_register_client_id() on EVERY NS context switch is redundant and CPU wasteful. Adding code to test whether tfm_register_client_id() has already been called for a particular NS thread also seems wasteful. What seems natural to me is to add a MemoryId argument to tfm_register_client_id() so that the clientID can be mapped to the MemoryId provided by TZ_AllocModuleContext_S() right after TZ_AllocModuleContext_S() is called (ie only once). Please correct my understanding of how tfm_register_client_id() is intended to be used if the above analysis is off base. Alan

7 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

TF-M