Hi all,
There are some planned outages for Friday morning (30th May UK around 10AM BST) to our CI.
This will affect the review process for a short period of time, expected to be less than one hour, but may cause some disruption over the weekend too.
I will be sure to send out another message once things have settled and should be back to normal.
Thank you for your patience and apologies in advance for any issues which may arise,
Matt
Hi all,
I am trying to build docs with following commands:
cmake -S docs -B ./build_docs
cmake --build build_docs/ -- tfm_docs_userguide_pdf
But I get following error
resolving references...
failed
Warning, treated as error:
RSVG converter command 'rsvg-convert' cannot be run. Check the rsvg_converter_bin setting
When I remove -W (warnings are errors) option from
COMMAND "${SPHINX_EXECUTABLE}" -W -b html -j 1 -c ${SPHINXCFG_CONFIG_PATH} ${SPHINXCFG_SOURCE_PATH} "${SPHINXCFG_OUTPUT_PATH}/html"
In docs/CMakeLists.txt then docs builds fine.
Is this -W option intentional? Should this issue be fixed or -W removed?
Regards,
Bohdan Hunko
Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine
Engineer
CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW
Mobile: +38099 50 19 714
Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>
Hi,
Per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-07 (which is latest spec I can find for profile 1 token):
The Certification Reference claim is used to link the class of chip and PSA RoT of the attesting device to an associated entry in the PSA Certification database. It MUST be represented as a thirteen-digit [EAN-13<https://www.gs1.org/standards/barcodes/ean-upc>].¶<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-07#se…>
Linking to the PSA Certification entry can still be achieved if this claim is not present in the token by making an association at a Verifier between the reference value and other token claim values - for example, the Implementation ID.¶<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tschofenig-rats-psa-token-07#se…>
psa-certification-reference-type = text .regexp "[0-9]{13}"
psa-certification-reference = (
? psa-certification-reference-key =>
psa-certification-reference-type
)
But in the tf-m-tools repo:
iat-verifier\iatverifier\psa_iot_profile1_token_claims.py it checks for PSA 2.0 profile HW version which is EAN-13 + 5.
class HardwareVersionClaim(AttestationClaim):
"""Class representing a PSA Attestation Token Hardware version claim"""
def verify(self, token_item):
self._check_type('HARDWARE_VERSION', token_item.value, str)
value_len = len(token_item.value)
expected_len = 19 # 'EAN13-Version' 13 + 1 + 5. e.g.:0604565272829-10010
if len(token_item.value) != expected_len:
msg = 'Invalid HARDWARE_VERSION length; must be {} characters, found {} characters'
self.verifier.error(msg.format(expected_len, value_len))
for idx, character in enumerate(token_item.value):
if character not in string.digits:
if idx != 13 or character not in '-':
msg = 'Invalid character {} at position {}'
self.verifier.error(msg.format(character, idx+1))
It seems like this was changed 3yrs ago:
SHA-1: 8ac8d17d15353c7f7933ae8065646946ae47f993
* Fix HW Version claim expected length
www.psacertified.org issuing HW versions of format '[0-9]{13}-[0-9]{5}'.
It is called 'certification reference':
https://www.psacertified.org/certified-products/
Signed-off-by: Tamas Ban <tamas.ban(a)arm.com>
Change-Id: I0417e1ce76896f1128864676f29a4314b3fd1fb8
When I run "check_iat" script, I get these errors:
./scripts/check_iat -k public_key.pem -K -p -t PSA-IoT-Profile1-token cc27xx.cbor
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid HARDWARE_VERSION length; must be 19 characters, found 13 characters
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character i at position 1
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character r at position 2
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character m at position 3
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character w at position 4
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character a at position 5
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character r at position 6
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character e at position 7
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character . at position 8
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character o at position 9
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character r at position 10
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character g at position 11
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character at position 12
ERROR:iat-verifiers:Invalid character at position 13
Is the verifier tool incorrect or should I be following "EAN13-Version' 13 + 1 + 5" even for profile 1 token?
Regards,
Brian Quach
SimpleLink MCU
Texas Instruments Inc.
12500 TI Blvd, MS F-4000
Dallas, TX 75243
214-479-4076
Hi everyone,
We would like to propose the deprecation of the following two TF-M platforms:
1. Musca-S1 (Arm)
Musca-S1 was one of the earliest platforms featuring an Armv8-M silicon implementation, providing a valuable real hardware target for initial development. However, with the availability of many modern hardware platforms, Musca-S1 is no longer essential and can be deprecated.
2. BL5340_dvk_cpuapp (Laird Connectivity)
This platform was initially proposed for deprecation at the end of 2023. Support activity has been minimal, and it closely mirrors the already-supported nRF5340 platform from Nordic Semiconductor.
Please share any comments or objections regarding this proposal. If no major concerns are raised by the end of June 2025, we plan to mark these platforms as deprecated and proceed with their removal from the codebase.
Thank you,
Anton
Hi team,
Can you help me with this statement that "Currently, the TF-M Secure Storage service implements PSA Protected Storage version 1.0-beta2. There is not yet an implementation of PSA Internal Trusted Storage in TF-M."
Our SoC does NOT have internal flash, but we have OTP where we keep the confidential data. Can you help how to handle this ITS situation. I wonder if PSA level-2 certification requires ITS? Thanks
BR
Michael
Hi Antonio,
I figured it out. I wasn’t including secure_fw/partitions/crypto/tfm_mbedcrypto_include.h properly so attestation was linking directly to the PSA Crypto function implementation instead of the client interface. I’m surprised it did not complain about a symbol collision without having the mbedcrypto__ prefix. The PSA crypto API implementation source files were “PRIVATE” so I’m not sure how attestation was able to link to them at all.
Regards,
Brian
From: Antonio De Angelis <Antonio.DeAngelis(a)arm.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 9:42 AM
To: Quach, Brian <brian(a)ti.com>; Mudit Sharma <Mudit.Sharma(a)arm.com>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TF-M] Attestation calls to PSA Crypto
Hi Brian, we can't reproduce exactly that mixture easily but I don't think that should affect how the partition code gets linked to the interface code. Regardless of the type of partition (SFN/IPC) the linking of the interfaces should remain
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.
Report Suspicious <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK!tvdkk1ajei0aJagkHNPjPb…>
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi Brian,
we can't reproduce exactly that mixture easily but I don't think that should affect how the partition code gets linked to the interface code. Regardless of the type of partition (SFN/IPC) the linking of the interfaces should remain the same, i.e. your setup should not be able to link at all directly with the crypto library that provides the PSA Crypto APIs.
Thanks, Antonio
________________________________
From: Quach, Brian
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2025 15:29
To: Mudit Sharma; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Cc: Antonio De Angelis
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TF-M] Attestation calls to PSA Crypto
Hi Mudit,
Thanks for checking. Is the build you tested using the same mix of SFN and IPC as I was?
Regards,
Brian
From: Mudit Sharma <mudit.sharma(a)arm.com<mailto:mudit.sharma@arm.com>>
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 5:21 AM
To: Quach, Brian <brian(a)ti.com<mailto:brian@ti.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Cc: Antonio.DeAngelis(a)arm.com<mailto:Antonio.DeAngelis@arm.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TF-M] Attestation calls to PSA Crypto
Hi Brian, We built secure world TF-M test for AN521 platform: ``` cmake -S spe -B build_spe -DTFM_PLATFORM=arm/mps2/an521 \ -DCONFIG_TFM_SOURCE_PATH="$TFM_SOURCE_DIR" \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug \ -DTEST_S=ON -DTEST_NS=OFF ``` We ran this test
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source of this email and know the content is safe.
Report Suspicious <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK!uXdq_RaPN01xCsXEHfkD30…>
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi Brian,
We built secure world TF-M test for AN521 platform:
```
cmake -S spe -B build_spe -DTFM_PLATFORM=arm/mps2/an521 \
-DCONFIG_TFM_SOURCE_PATH="$TFM_SOURCE_DIR" \
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug \
-DTEST_S=ON -DTEST_NS=OFF
```
We ran this test on a FVP model and stepped through
`tfm_attest_test_1001`. Please find attached a screenshot of the call stack.
Function in `attest_core` (in the Attestation partition) invokes
function in the `tfm_crypto_api`. This request is routed by the Secure
Partition Manager (SPM) into the Crypto partition via `psa_call()`.
On 5/6/25 00:33, Quach, Brian wrote:
>
> Is my configuration valid? How should it work?
>
Any time you call a function across partitions, regardless of isolation
level, the SPM forwards it to the target partition using `psa_call()`
>
Best regards,
Mudit Sharma
Hi,
Assuming Isolation Level 1 and IPC backend, I'm using Attestation partition with SFN model with stateless handle and a custom Crypto partition using IPC model with stateless handle. My custom Crypto partition includes a PSA crypto wrapper which defines all the PSA Crypto APIs to use HW crypto. We used IPC since we want to be able to support isolation level 2-3 in the future.
When the Attestation partition make calls to PSA Crypto (psa_hash_setup for example), should it use a psa_call() to the Crypto Partition? That is what I had expected since the crypto partition is IPC model but I'm seeing it call the PSA crypto code directly. Also, it appears to provide client side psa_hash_operation_t directly to the psa_hash_setup which is expecting the full operation struct.
Is my configuration valid? How should it work?
[ 52%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/partitions/_1/crypto_sp/CMakeFiles/ti_tfm_psa_rot_partition_crypto.dir/home/brian/gits/secure_drivers/source/third_party/psa_crypto/psa_crypto_wrapper.o
[ 53%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/partitions/_1/crypto_sp/CMakeFiles/ti_tfm_psa_rot_partition_crypto.dir/__/__/__/__/__/generated/secure_fw/partitions/ti_crypto/auto_generated/intermedia_crypto_sp.o
[ 53%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/partitions/_1/crypto_sp/CMakeFiles/ti_tfm_psa_rot_partition_crypto.dir/home/brian/gits/spe/source/third_party/tfm/platform/ext/common/syscalls_stub.o
[ 54%] Linking C static library libti_tfm_psa_rot_partition_crypto.a
[ 54%] Built target ti_tfm_psa_rot_partition_crypto
[ 54%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/tfm_attest.o
[ 55%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/tfm_attest_req_mngr.o
[ 55%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/attest_core.o
[ 56%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/attest_boot_data.o
[ 56%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/attest_asymmetric_key.o
[ 57%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/attest_token_encode.o
[ 57%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/__/__/__/generated/secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/auto_generated/intermedia_tfm_initial_attestation.o
[ 58%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/__/__/__/lib/ext/t_cose/src/t_cose_sign1_sign.o
[ 58%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/__/__/__/lib/ext/t_cose/src/t_cose_sign1_verify.o
[ 59%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/__/__/__/lib/ext/t_cose/src/t_cose_util.o
[ 59%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/__/__/__/lib/ext/t_cose/src/t_cose_parameters.o
[ 60%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/__/__/__/lib/ext/t_cose/crypto_adapters/t_cose_psa_crypto.o
[ 60%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/initial_attestation/CMakeFiles/tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.dir/__/__/__/platform/ext/common/syscalls_stub.o
[ 61%] Linking C static library libtfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation.a
[ 61%] Built target tfm_psa_rot_partition_attestation
[ 61%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/__/__/__/__/platform/ext/common/syscalls_stub.o
[ 62%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/crt_memcmp.o
[ 62%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/crt_memmove.o
[ 63%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/crt_strnlen.o
[ 63%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/service_api.o
[ 64%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/__/__/__/shared/crt_memcpy.o
[ 64%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/__/__/__/shared/crt_memset.o
[ 65%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/sprt_partition_metadata_indicator.o
[ 65%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/sfn_common_thread.o
[ 66%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/psa_api_ipc.o
[ 66%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/__/__/__/spm/core/psa_interface_thread_fn_call.o
[ 67%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/__/__/__/__/interface/src/tfm_attest_api.o
[ 67%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/__/__/__/__/interface/src/tfm_psa_call.o
[ 68%] Building C object secure_fw/partitions/lib/runtime/CMakeFiles/tfm_sprt.dir/__/__/__/__/interface/src/tfm_crypto_api.o
[ 68%] Linking C static library libtfm_sprt.a
Regards,
Brian Quach
SimpleLink MCU
Texas Instruments Inc.
12500 TI Blvd, MS F-4000
Dallas, TX 75243
214-479-4076
Hi everyone,
We're excited to announce the release of TF-M v2.2.0!
Major Highlights:
*
LLVM build support for MPS2/3/4 and RSE platforms.
* Mbed TLS upgraded to version 3.6.3.
* Now compliant with PSA Architecture Compliance Kit tests v1.6.
* Initial hybrid platform support:
* Enables on-core and off-core clients (A-profile + M-profile or multiple M-profile).
* Uses HYBRID_PLAT_SCHED_TYPE=NSPE (aka Solution 2).
* Note: This feature is under active development and testing.
* New platforms support
* Initial support for building nRF54L15
* Initial support for building stm32wba65i-dk
For full details, please refer to the release notes<https://trustedfirmware-m.readthedocs.io/en/tf-mv2.2.0/releases/2.2.0.html>.
TF-M v2.1.2 (LTS) Release
We've also released TF-M v2.1.2 on the LTS branch, which includes critical bug fixes, such as:
* Fixed issue where Protected Storage content could be lost under full storage conditions followed by device resets.
* Correctly mark NSPE images in the wrapper.
* Various SPM fixes:
* Removed specific section for psa_interface_thread_fn_call.
* Added missing fih_rc return value checks in interrupts.
* Resolved issues with IOVEC unmapping.
* Proper handling of refused psa_connect calls.
* Fixed invalid connection retention after psa_close.
* Resolved issues with reverse-handle usage.
*
*
New platform support:
*
MAX32657 port now available.
A huge thank you to everyone who contributed, reviewed, and supported this release!
The v2.2.0 changes will be ported to the main branch shortly. Stay tuned!
Anton and TF-M team
Hi
Just forwarding older private discussion to mailing list to make it publicly available.
Regards,
Bohdan Hunko
Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine
Engineer
CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW
Mobile: +38099 50 19 714
Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>
From: Antonio De Angelis <Antonio.DeAngelis(a)arm.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 15:57
To: Mazurak Roman (CSS ICW SW FW 3) <Roman.Mazurak(a)infineon.com>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com>; Hunko Bohdan (CSS ICW SW FW 3) <Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com>
Subject: Re: Weird behavior of Clang linker
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you validate it is safe<https://intranet-content.infineon.com/explore/aboutinfineon/rules/informati…>.
Hi Roman,
I tried to look in the ELF spec that I could find by googling, but what I can find online doesn't mention the topic of alignment requirements at all other than a brief mention of how the base address and align requirements must be coherent. How the requirement on alignment propagates from sections to execution regions to load regions is still something that I am trying to understand as I can't find an exhaustive description. The info I shared below stem from a personal conversation that I had with the compiler team internally here in Arm, I have now asked for a reference, will revert back to you in case I get one.
[cid:0aef50f0-9105-480f-8090-06cfaa06b8d3]
Only explicit mention of alignment that I could find is in the armlink manual in section 3.3.3.
[cid:ef5c45ef-7d67-433c-9aba-b8fd7cf0d1c0]
The suggestion from the compiler team are as I mentioned:
1. just disable the strict checks on alignment (i.e. the linker will be then allowed to add padding as required to meet the constraint imposed by the base address of the load region and the ALIGN attributes, by suppressing the diagnostic or using --legacyalign (on a side note, I believe this is the default behaviour on GCC linker for example)
2. rewrite the scatter file to have all the input sections without alignment requirements in the output section where the vector reside, and then have another output section just after the first output section (i.e. with base address +0) to put all the other input sections with increased alignment. As a side note, the suggestion is to also align base addresses of sections using AlignExpr(+0, 4096) (for example, to align to 0x1000) rather than forcing ALIGN attributes. Note that this shouldn't be too complex to attain point 2 but it is something that at the moment we can't work on, but happily merge it in if you're willing to provide a patch for it. Your suggestion of having multiple output section is as well doable, but probably enough to have two of them.
Will get back to you in case I get some more reference about how the alignment requirements in ELF propagate from input section to output sections just to confirm on the spec itself.
Hope this helps, please let me know if any questions!
Thanks, Antonio
________________________________
From: Roman.Mazurak(a)infineon.com<mailto:Roman.Mazurak@infineon.com> <Roman.Mazurak(a)infineon.com<mailto:Roman.Mazurak@infineon.com>>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 13:37
To: Antonio De Angelis <Antonio.DeAngelis(a)arm.com<mailto:Antonio.DeAngelis@arm.com>>; Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>>; Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com> <Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>>
Subject: RE: Weird behavior of Clang linker
Hi Antonio,
We have a use case when output section has following list of input sections:
* Vectors with alignment by 0x400.
* Partitions sections with alignment by 0x1000.
As result output section alignment is 0x1000 and address is incorrect. So, probably it’s necessary to create a separate output section for each input section.
Can you share a link to ELF specification with requirements for output section alignment?
Best regards,
Roman.
From: Antonio De Angelis via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 18:56
To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>; Hunko Bohdan (CSS ICW SW FW 3) <Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>>
Subject: [TF-M] Re: Weird behavior of Clang linker
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you validate it is safe<https://intranet-content.infineon.com/explore/aboutinfineon/rules/informati…>.
Hi Bohdan,
For reference, this is due to armlink being strict on following the ELF specification for which the region alignment is derived as the maximum alignment of the input sections. You can relax this requirement with armlink by either using the --legacyalign option (although it's being deprecated) or suppressing the diagnostic --diag_suppress=6244. In the future, we could try to reorganize the scatter file for the armclang toolchain to avoid using directly ALIGN attributes and align the base address of the execution regions using AlignExpr() instead, but even with this strategy, any alignment requirement which stems from using .aligned directive in assembly or attribute __ ((aligned)) attributes will influence the input sections alignment, hence it will require a deeper restructuring of the scatter file, possibly moving sections with increased alignment in a separate load region just after LR_CODE which must have a base address that forces a natural alignment.
Hope this helps.
Thanks, Antonio
________________________________
From: Bohdan.Hunko--- via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 13:39
To: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org> <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Subject: [TF-M] Re: Weird behavior of Clang linker
Hi Anton,
Here is the version I am using:
$ armclang --version
Product: Arm Development Studio Gold Edition 2020.1
Component: Arm Compiler for Embedded 6.19
Tool: armclang [5e73cb00]
Target: unspecified-arm-none-unspecified
Regards,
Bohdan Hunko
Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine
Engineer
CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW
Mobile: +38099 50 19 714
Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>
From: Anton Komlev <Anton.Komlev(a)arm.com<mailto:Anton.Komlev@arm.com>>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 15:34
To: Hunko Bohdan (CSS ICW SW FW 3) <Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>>; tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: RE: Weird behavior of Clang linker
Caution: This e-mail originated outside Infineon Technologies. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you validate it is safe<https://intranet-content.infineon.com/explore/aboutinfineon/rules/informati…>.
Hi Bohdan,
What is Clang version you are using?
Thanks,
Anton
From: Bohdan.Hunko--- via TF-M <tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 12:58 PM
To: tf-m(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org<mailto:tf-m@lists.trustedfirmware.org>
Subject: [TF-M] Weird behavior of Clang linker
Hi all,
Our platform uses 4KBs alignment in linker files (as this is the requirement of our protection HW).
For this reasons I have introduced tfm_s_linker_alignments.h.
Everything works fine with GCC but we have a problem with Clang. The problem is that Clang requires LR_CODE to have same alignment as other sections inside of it.
Following are the steps to reproduce the issue:
1. Set TFM_LINKER_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT to 0x1000 in tfm_s_linker_alignments.h
2. Build AN521 with following command line
cmake -S . -B build_an521 -DTFM_PLATFORM=arm/mps2/an521 -DTFM_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=./toolchain_ARMCLANG.cmake
Expected result:
Everything works fine
Actual result:
Error: L6244E: Load region LR_CODE address (0x10080400) not aligned on a 4096 byte boundary.
This error is weird because there is no explicit alignment assigned to LR_CODE region.
Would appreciate a help on this as it is a blocking issue for us.
Regards,
Bohdan Hunko
Cypress Semiconductor Ukraine
Engineer
CSUKR CSS ICW SW FW
Mobile: +38099 50 19 714
Bohdan.Hunko(a)infineon.com<mailto:Bohdan.Hunko@infineon.com>
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.
Hi, does TF-M use LTO? I didn't see any flags to disable it in toolchain_GNUARM.cmake. I think for GCC, it's enabled by default if no flag is set.
Regards,
Brian Quach
SimpleLink MCU
Texas Instruments Inc.
12500 TI Blvd, MS F-4000
Dallas, TX 75243
214-479-4076
