boot-architecture April 2021

boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org

22 participants
14 discussions

Re: [v5.4 stable] arm: stm32: Regression observed on "no-map" reserved memory region

by Rob Herring

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:12 AM Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue(a)foss.st.com> wrote: > > > > On 4/20/21 4:45 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 9:03 AM Alexandre TORGUE > > <alexandre.torgue(a)foss.st.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > > > > Greg or Sasha won't know what to do with this. Not sure who follows > > the stable list either. Quentin sent the patch, but is not the author. > > Given the patch in question is about consistency between EFI memory > > map boot and DT memory map boot, copying EFI knowledgeable folks would > > help (Ard B for starters). > > Ok thanks for the tips. I add Ard in the loop. Sigh. If it was only Ard I was suggesting I would have done that myself. Now everyone on the patch in question and relevant lists are Cc'ed. > > Ard, let me know if other people have to be directly added or if I have > to resend to another mailing list. > > thanks > alex > > > > >> > >> Since v5.4.102 I observe a regression on stm32mp1 platform: "no-map" > >> reserved-memory regions are no more "reserved" and make part of the > >> kernel System RAM. This causes allocation failure for devices which try > >> to take a reserved-memory region. > >> > >> It has been introduced by the following path: > >> > >> "fdt: Properly handle "no-map" field in the memory region > >> [ Upstream commit 86588296acbfb1591e92ba60221e95677ecadb43 ]" > >> which replace memblock_remove by memblock_mark_nomap in no-map case. > >> > >> Reverting this patch it's fine. > >> > >> I add part of my DT (something is maybe wrong inside): > >> > >> memory@c0000000 { > >> reg = <0xc0000000 0x20000000>; > >> }; > >> > >> reserved-memory { > >> #address-cells = <1>; > >> #size-cells = <1>; > >> ranges; > >> > >> gpu_reserved: gpu@d4000000 { > >> reg = <0xd4000000 0x4000000>; > >> no-map; > >> }; > >> }; > >> > >> Sorry if this issue has already been raised and discussed. > >> > >> Thanks > >> alex

2 years, 11 months

Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for information passing between boot stages

by François Ozog

Hi here is the meeting recording: https://linaro-org.zoom.us/rec/share/zjfHeMIumkJhirLCVQYTHR6ftaqyWvF_0klgQn… Passcode: IPn+5q%z I am really sorry about the confusion related to the meeting time. I have now understood: the Collaborate portal uses a specific calendar which is tied to US/Chicago timezone while the actual Google Calendar is tied to Central Europe timezone. I am going to drop the Collaborate portal and use a shared Google calendar (it should be visible on the trusted-substrate.org page). I'll try to summarize what I learnt and highlight my view on what can be next steps in a future mail. Cheers FF On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 13:56, Manish Pandey2 via TF-A < tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > Hi, > > From TF-A project point of view, we prefer to use existing mechanism to > pass parameters across boot stages using linked list of tagged elements (as > suggested by Julius). It has support for both generic and SiP-specific > tags. Having said that, it does not stop partners to introduce new > mechanisms suitable for their usecase in platform port initially and later > move to generic code if its suitable for other platforms. > > To start with, Ampere can introduce a platform specific implementation of > memory tag(speed/NUMA topology etc) which can be evaluated and discussed > for generalization in future. The tag will be populated in BL2 stage and > can be forwarded to further stages(and to BL33) by passing the head of list > pointer in one of the registers. Initially any register can be used but > going forward a standardization will be needed. > > The U-boot bloblist mentioned by Simon is conceptually similar to what > TF-A is using, if there is consensus of using bloblist/taglist then TF-A > tag list may be enhanced to take best of both the implementations. > > One of the potential problems of having structure used in different > projects is maintainability, this can be avoided by having a single copy of > these structures in TF-A (kept inside "include/export" which intended to be > used by other projects.) > > Regarding usage of either UUID or tag, I echo the sentiments of Simon and > Julius to keep it simple and use tag values. > > Looking forward to having further discussions on zoom call today. > > Thanks > Manish P > > ------------------------------ > *From:* TF-A <tf-a-bounces(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> on behalf of Julius > Werner via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> > *Sent:* 25 March 2021 02:43 > *To:* Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org> > *Cc:* Harb Abdulhamid OS <abdulhamid(a)os.amperecomputing.com>; Boot > Architecture Mailman List <boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org>; > tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org>; U-Boot > Mailing List <u-boot(a)lists.denx.de>; Paul Isaac's <paul.isaacs(a)linaro.org>; > Ron Minnich <rminnich(a)google.com> > *Subject:* Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for > information passing between boot stages > > Just want to point out that TF-A currently already supports a (very > simple) mechanism like this: > > > https://review.trustedfirmware.org/plugins/gitiles/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/… > > https://review.trustedfirmware.org/plugins/gitiles/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/… > > https://review.trustedfirmware.org/plugins/gitiles/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/… > > It's just a linked list of tagged elements. The tag space is split into > TF-A-wide generic tags and SiP-specific tags (with plenty of room to spare > if more areas need to be defined -- a 64-bit tag can fit a lot). This is > currently being used by some platforms that run coreboot in place of > BL1/BL2, to pass information from coreboot (BL2) to BL31. > > I would echo Simon's sentiment of keeping this as simple as possible and > avoiding complicated and bloated data structures with UUIDs. You usually > want to parse something like this as early as possible in the passed-to > firmware stage, particularly if the structure encodes information about the > debug console (like it does for the platforms I mentioned above). For > example, in BL31 this basically means doing it right after moving from > assembly to C in bl31_early_platform_setup2() to get the console up before > running anything else. At that point in the BL31 initialization, the MMU > and caches are disabled, so data accesses are pretty expensive and you > don't want to spend a lot of parsing effort or calculate complicated > checksums or the like. You just want something extremely simple where you > ideally have to touch every data word only once. > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 5:06 PM Simon Glass via TF-A < > tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > Hi Harb, > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 11:39, Harb Abdulhamid OS < > abdulhamid(a)os.amperecomputing.com> wrote: > > Hello Folks, > > Appreciate the feedback and replies on this. Glad to see that there is > interest in this topic. 😊 > > > > I try to address the comments/feedback from Francois and Simon below…. > > > > @François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org> – happy to discuss this on a > zoom call. I will make that time slot work, and will be available to > attend April 8, 4pm CT. > > > > Note that I’m using the term “HOB” here more generically, as there are > typically vendor specific structures beyond the resource descriptor HOB, > which provides only a small subset of the information that needs to be > passed between the boot phases. > > > > The whole point here is to provide mechanism to develop firmware that we > can build ARM Server SoC’s that support **any** BL33 payload (e.g. EDK2, > AptioV, CoreBoot, and maybe even directly boot strapping LinuxBoot at some > point). In other-words, we are trying to come up with a TF-A that would > be completely agnostic to the implementation of BL33 (i.e. BL33 is built > completely independently by a separate entity – e.g. an ODM/OEM). > > > > Keep in mind, in the server/datacenter market segment we are not building > vertically integrated systems with a single entity compiling > firmware/software stacks like most folks in TF-A have become use to. There > are two categories of higher level firmware code blobs in the > server/datacenter model: > > 1. “SoC” or “silicon” firmware – in TF-A this may map to BL1, BL2, > BL31, and **possibly** one or more BL32 instances > 2. “Platform” or “board” firmware – in TF-A this may map to BL33 and * > *possibly** one or more BL32 instances. > > > > Even the platform firmware stack could be further fragmented by having > multiple entities involved in delivering the entire firmware stack: IBVs, > ODMs, OEMs, CSPs, and possibly even device vendor code. > > > > To support a broad range of platform designs with a broad range of memory > devices, we need a crisp and clear contract between the SoC firmware that > initializes memory (e.g. BL2) and how that platform boot firmware (e.g. > BL33) gathers information about what memory that was initialized, at what > speeds, NUMA topology, and many other relevant information that needs to be > known and comprehended by the platform firmware and eventually by the > platform software. > > > > I understand the versatility of DT, but I see two major problems with DT: > > - DT requires more complicated parsing to get properties, and even > more complex to dynamically set properties – this HOB structures may need > to be generated in boot phases where DDR is not available, and therefore we > will be extremely memory constrained. > - DT is probably overkill for this purpose – We really just want a > list of pointers to simple C structures that code cast (e.g. JEDEC SPD data > blob) > > > > I think that we should not mix the efforts around DT/ACPI specs with what > we are doing here, because those specs and concepts were developed for a > completely different purpose (i.e. abstractions needed for OS / RTOS > software, and not necessarily suitable for firmware-to-firmware hand-offs). > > > > Frankly, I would personally push back pretty hard on defining SMC’s for > something that should be one way information passing. Every SMC we add is > another attack vector to the secure world and an increased burden on the > folks that have to do security auditing and threat analysis. I see no > benefit in exposing these boot/HOB/BOB structures at run-time via SMC > calls. > > > > Please do let me know if you disagree and why. Look forward to discussing > on this thread or on the call. > > > > @Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org> - Thanks for the pointer to bloblist. > I briefly reviewed and it seems like a good baseline for what we may be > looking for. > > > > That being said, I would say that there is some benefit in having some > kind of unique identifiers (e.g. UUID or some unique signature) so that we > can tie standardized data structures (based on some future TBD specs) to a > particular ID. For example, if the TPM driver in BL33 is looking for the > TPM structure in the HOB/BOB list, and may not care about the other data > blobs. The driver needs a way to identify and locate the blob it cares > about. > > > The tag is intended to serve that purpose, although perhaps it should > switch from an auto-allocating enum to one with explicit values for each > entry and a range for 'local' use. > > > > I guess we can achieve this with the tag, but the problem with tag when > you have eco-system with a lot of parties doing parallel development, you > can end up with tag collisions and folks fighting about who has rights to > what tag values. We would need some official process for folks to register > tags for whatever new structures we define, or maybe some tag range for > vendor specific structures. This comes with a lot of pain and > bureaucracy. On the other hand, UUID has been a proven way to make it easy > to just define your own blobs with **either** standard or vendor specific > structures without worry of ID collisions between vendors. > > > True. I think the pain is overstated, though. In this case I think we > actually want something that can be shared between projects and orgs, so > some amount of coordination could be considered a benefit. It could just be > a github pull request. I find the UUID unfriendly and not just to code size > and eyesight! Trying to discover what GUIDs mean or are valid is quite > tricky. E.g. see this code: > > #define FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_TSEG_GUID \ > EFI_GUID(0xd038747c, 0xd00c, 0x4980, \ > 0xb3, 0x19, 0x49, 0x01, 0x99, 0xa4, 0x7d, 0x55) > (etc.) > > static struct guid_name { > efi_guid_t guid; > const char *name; > } guid_name[] = { > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_TSEG_GUID, "TSEG" }, > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_FSP_GUID, "FSP" }, > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_SMM_PEI_SMRAM_GUID, "SMM PEI SMRAM" }, > { FSP_NON_VOLATILE_STORAGE_HOB_GUID, "NVS" }, > { FSP_VARIABLE_NV_DATA_HOB_GUID, "Variable NVS" }, > { FSP_GRAPHICS_INFO_HOB_GUID, "Graphics info" }, > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_PCD_DATABASE_GUID1, "PCD database ea" }, > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_PCD_DATABASE_GUID2, "PCD database 9b" }, > (never figured out what those two are) > > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_PEIM_DXE_GUID, "PEIM Init DXE" }, > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_ALLOC_STACK_GUID, "Alloc stack" }, > { FSP_HOB_RESOURCE_OWNER_SMBIOS_MEMORY_GUID, "SMBIOS memory" }, > { {}, "zero-guid" }, > {} > }; > > static const char *guid_to_name(const efi_guid_t *guid) > { > struct guid_name *entry; > > for (entry = guid_name; entry->name; entry++) { > if (!guidcmp(guid, &entry->guid)) > return entry->name; > } > > return NULL; > } > > Believe it or not it took a fair bit of effort to find just that small > list, with nearly every one in a separate doc, from memory. > > > > We can probably debate whether there is any value in GUID/UUID or not > during the call… but again, boblist seems like a reasonable starting point > as an alternative to HOB. > > > Indeed. There is certainly value in both approaches. > > Regards, > Simon > > > > > Thanks, > > --Harb > > > > *From:* François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:00 AM > *To:* François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org>; Ron Minnich < > rminnich(a)google.com>; Paul Isaac's <paul.isaacs(a)linaro.org> > *Cc:* Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org>; Harb Abdulhamid OS < > abdulhamid(a)os.amperecomputing.com>; Boot Architecture Mailman List < > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org>; tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > *Subject:* Re: [TF-A] Proposal: TF-A to adopt hand-off blocks (HOBs) for > information passing between boot stages > > > > +Ron Minnich <rminnich(a)google.com> +Paul Isaac's <paul.isaacs(a)linaro.org> > > > > Adding Ron and Paul because I think this interface should be also > benefiting LinuxBoot efforts. > > > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 11:17, François Ozog via TF-A < > tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I propose we cover the topic at the next Trusted Substrate > <https://collaborate.linaro.org/display/TS/Trusted+Substrate+Home> zoom > call <https://linaro-org.zoom.us/j/94563644892> on April 8th 4pm CET. > > > > The agenda: > > ABI between non-secure firmware and the rest of firmware (EL3, S-EL1, > S-EL2, SCP) to adapt hardware description to some runtime conditions. > > runtime conditions here relates to DRAM size and topology detection, > secure DRAM memory carvings, PSCI and SCMI interface publishing. > > > > For additional background on existing metadata: UEFI Platform > Initialization Specification Version 1.7 > <https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/PI_Spec_1_7_final_Jan_2019.p…> > , 5.5 Resource Descriptor HOB > > Out of the ResourceType we care about is EFI_RESOURCE_SYSTEM_MEMORY. > > This HOB lacks memory NUMA attachment or something that could be related > to fill SRAT table for ACPI or relevant DT proximity domains. > > HOB is not consistent accros platforms: some platforms (Arm) lists memory > from the booting NUMA node, other platforms (x86) lists all memory from all > NUMA nodes. (At least this is the case on the two platforms I tested). > > > > There are two proposals to use memory structures from SPL/BLx up to the > handover function (as defined in the Device Tree technical report > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLkhLRaz_zcCq44DLGmPZQFPbYHOC6nzPowaL0X…>) > which can be U-boot (BL33 or just U-Boot in case of SPL/U-Boot scheme) or > EDK2. > > I would propose we also discuss possibility of FF-A interface to actually > query information or request actions to be done (this is a model actually > used in some SoCs with proprietary SMC calls). > > > > Requirements (to be validated): > > - ACPI and DT hardware descriptions. > > - agnostic to boot framework (SPL/U-Boot, TF-A/U-Boot, TF-A/EDK2) > > - agnostic to boot framework (SPL/U-Boot, TF-A/U-Boot, TF-A/EDK2, > TF-A/LinuxBoot) > > - at least allows complete DRAM description and "persistent" usage > (reserved areas for secure world or other usages) > > - support secure world device assignment > > > > Cheers > > > > FF > > > > > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 19:56, Simon Glass <sjg(a)chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Can I suggest using bloblist for this instead? It is lightweight, > easier to parse, doesn't have GUIDs and is already used within U-Boot > for passing info between SPL/U-Boot, etc. > > Docs here: > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/doc/README.bloblist > Header file describes the format: > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/include/bloblist.h > > Full set of unit tests: > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/test/bloblist.c > > Regards, > Simon > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 23:58, François Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > +Boot Architecture Mailman List <boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org> > > > > standardization is very much welcomed here and need to accommodate a very > > diverse set of situations. > > For example, TEE OS may need to pass memory reservations to BL33 or > > "capture" a device for the secure world. > > > > I have observed a number of architectures: > > 1) pass information from BLx to BLy in the form of a specific object > > 2) BLx called by BLy by a platform specific SMC to get information > > 3) BLx called by BLy by a platform specific SMC to perform Device Tree > > fixups > > > > I also imagined a standardized "broadcast" FF-A call so that any firmware > > element can either provide information or "do something". > > > > My understanding of your proposal is about standardizing on architecture > 1) > > with the HOB format. > > > > The advantage of the HOB is simplicity but it may be difficult to > implement > > schemes such as pruning a DT because device assignment in the secure > world. > > > > In any case, it looks feasible to have TF-A and OP-TEE complement the > list > > of HOBs to pass information downstream (the bootflow). > > > > It would be good to start with building the comprehensive list of > > information that need to be conveyed between firmware elements: > > > > information. | authoritative entity | reporting entity | information > > exchanged: > > dram | TFA | TFA | > > <format to be detailed, NUMA topology to build the SRAT table or DT > > equivalent?> > > PSCI | SCP | TFA? | > > SCMI | SCP or TEE-OS | TFA? TEE-OS?| > > secure SRAM | TFA. | TFA. | > > secure DRAM | TFA? TEE-OS? | TFA? TEE-OS? | > > other? | | > > | > > > > Cheers > > > > FF > > > > > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 at 09:34, Harb Abdulhamid OS via TF-A < > > tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> wrote: > > > > > Hello Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm emailing to start an open discussion about the adoption of a > concept > > > known as "hand-off blocks" or HOB to become a part of the TF-A Firmware > > > Framework Architecture (FFA). This is something that is a pretty major > > > pain point when it comes to the adoption of TF-A in ARM Server SoC’s > > > designed to enable a broad range of highly configurable datacenter > > > platforms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is a HOB (Background)? > > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > UEFI PI spec describes a particular definition for how HOB may be used > for > > > transitioning between the PEI and DXE boot phases, which is a good > > > reference point for this discussion, but not necessarily the exact > solution > > > appropriate for TF-A. > > > > > > > > > > > > A HOB is simply a dynamically generated data structure passed in > between > > > two boot phases. This is information that was obtained through > discovery > > > and needs to be passed forward to the next boot phase *once*, with no > API > > > needed to call back (e.g. no call back into previous firmware phase is > > > needed to fetch this information at run-time - it is simply passed one > time > > > during boot). > > > > > > > > > > > > There may be one or more HOBs passed in between boot phases. If there > are > > > more than one HOB that needs to be passed, this can be in a form of a > "HOB > > > table", which (for example) could be a UUID indexed array of pointers > to > > > HOB structures, used to locate a HOB of interest (based on UUID). In > such > > > cases, instead of passing a single HOB, the boot phases may rely on > passing > > > the pointer to the HOB table. > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been extremely useful concept to employ on highly configurable > > > systems that must rely on flexible discovery mechanisms to initialize > and > > > boot the system. This is especially helpful when you have multiple > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do we need HOBs in TF-A?: > > > > > > ----------------------------- > > > > > > It is desirable that EL3 firmware (e.g. TF-A) built for ARM Server SoC > in > > > a way that is SoC specific *but* platform agnostic. This means that a > > > single ARM SoC that a SiP may deliver to customers may provide a single > > > TF-A binary (e.g. BL1, BL2, BL31) that could be used to support a broad > > > range of platform designs and configurations in order to boot a > platform > > > specific firmware (e.g. BL33 and possibly even BL32 code). In order to > > > achieve this, the platform configuration must be *discovered* instead > of > > > statically compiled as it is today in TF-A via device tree based > > > enumeration. The mechanisms of discovery may differ broadly depending > on > > > the relevant industry standard, or in some cases may have rely on SiP > > > specific discovery flows. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example: On server systems that support a broad range DIMM memory > > > population/topologies, all the necessary information required to boot > is > > > fully discovered via standard JEDEC Serial Presence Detect (SPD) over > an > > > I2C bus. Leveraging the SPD bus, may platform variants could be > supported > > > with a single TF-A binary. Not only is this information required to > > > initialize memory in early boot phases (e.g. BL2), the subsequent boot > > > phases will also need this SPD info to construct a system physical > address > > > map and properly initialize the MMU based on the memory present, and > where > > > the memory may be present. Subsequent boot phases (e.g. BL33 / UEFI) > may > > > need to generate standard firmware tables to the operating systems, > such as > > > SMBIOS tables describing DIMM topology and various ACPI tables (e.g. > SLIT, > > > SRAT, even NFIT if NVDIMM's are present). > > > > > > > > > > > > In short, it all starts with a standardized or vendor specific > discovery > > > flow in an early boot stage (e.g. BL1/BL2), followed by the passing of > > > information to the next boot stages (e.g. BL31/BL32/BL33). > > > > > > > > > > > > Today, every HOB may be a vendor specific structure, but in the future > > > there may be benefit of defining standard HOBs. This may be useful for > > > memory discovery, passing the system physical address map, enabling TPM > > > measured boot, and potentially many other common HOB use-cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be extremely beneficial to the datacenter market segment if > the > > > TF-A community would adopt this concept of information passing between > all > > > boot phases as opposed to rely solely on device tree enumeration. > This is > > > not intended to replace device tree, rather intended as an alternative > way > > > to describe the info that must be discovered and dynamically generated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Conclusion: > > > > > > ----------- > > > > > > We are proposing that the TF-A community begin pursuing the adoption of > > > HOBs as a mechanism used for information exchange between each boot > stage > > > (e.g. BL1->BL2, BL2->BL31, BL31->BL32, and BL31->BL33)? Longer term we > > > want to explore standardizing some HOB structures for the BL33 phase > (e.g. > > > UEFI HOB structures), but initially would like to agree on this being a > > > useful mechanism used to pass information between each boot stage. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --Harb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > TF-A mailing list > > > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > > > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > > > > > > > > > -- > > François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* > > T: +33.67221.6485 > > francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog > > _______________________________________________ > > boot-architecture mailing list > > boot-architecture(a)lists.linaro.org > > https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture > > > > > -- > > *François-Frédéric Ozog* | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* > > T: +33.67221.6485 > francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog > > > > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > > > > > -- > > *François-Frédéric Ozog* | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* > > T: +33.67221.6485 > francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog > > > > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > > -- > TF-A mailing list > TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org > https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a > -- François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog

2 years, 11 months

System Device Tree call - May 2021

by Nathalie Chan King Choy

Hi all, Notes & link to the recording from the last System DT call can be found at https://github.com/OpenAMP/open-amp/wiki/System-Device-Tree-Meeting-Notes-2… If you missed the LVC21 Device Tree State of the Union: https://connect.linaro.org/resources/lvc21/lvc21-108/ Or the LVC21 Device Tree BOF: https://connect.linaro.org/resources/lvc21/lvc21-112 Action items from last call: * Loic: Check HW lock bindings * Stefano: Will try to combine the 2 properties into 1 & come up with some examples. Call scheduled based on overlapping availability of the speakers. Will record for those who can't make it. Thanks & regards, Nathalie Monday, May 10, 2021 9:00 AM | (UTC-07:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) | 1 hr Join meeting<https://xilinx.webex.com/xilinx/j.php?MTID=mbc32e3c3ef70524171c8a6bb1b463ff2> More ways to join: Join from the meeting link https://xilinx.webex.com/xilinx/j.php?MTID=mbc32e3c3ef70524171c8a6bb1b463ff2 Join by meeting number Meeting number (access code): 145 453 6735 Meeting password: MQim27cd2K@ Join by phone +1-415-655-0001 US Toll 1-844-621-3956 United States Toll Free Global call-in numbers<https://xilinx.webex.com/xilinx/globalcallin.php?MTID=m5365d8b15eb1f587e081…> | Toll-free calling restrictions<https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> Need help? Go to https://help.webex.com

3 years

EBBR v2.0.0 released

by Grant Likely

Hi all, I've just tagged v2.0.0 of EBBR. Please go have a read and please report any issues either here or on github: https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/releases/tag/v2.0.0 https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/issues Cheers, g.

3 years

Reminder: EBBR Biweekly for 26 April 2021

by Grant Likely

Hi all, Next EBBR meeting is ON for Monday, 26 April 2021 at 16:00 GMT. Dial in details are below. As discussed at last meeting, the EBBR biweekly series will be dedicated to tech topics around boot standardization until such time as another EBBR release needs to be considered. This Monday, Jose Marinho will be presenting the proposed firmware update protocol https://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/boot-architecture/2021-April/001799.html Email me if you'd like to propose a tech topic for an upcoming EBBR meeting. g. --- Grant Likely is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: EBBR Biweekly Time: 18 Jan 2021, 16:00-17:00 GMT Join Zoom Meeting https://armltd.zoom.us/j/92081365511?pwd=SFZpRitXUEp3Zy9GM0h3UUZ1b1pnUT09 Meeting ID: 920 8136 5511 Passcode: 490324 One tap mobile +14086380968,,92081365511#,,,,*490324# US (San Jose) +16465189805,,92081365511#,,,,*490324# US (New York) Dial by your location +1 408 638 0968 US (San Jose) +1 646 518 9805 US (New York) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) Meeting ID: 920 8136 5511 Passcode: 490324 Find your local number: https://armltd.zoom.us/u/aelJgr9ZAW

3 years

FW update on A-class Arm devices

by Jose Marinho

Good afternoon, Linaro and Arm have been standardizing the FW update mechanism for A-class devices. The intention behind the standardization is to enable generic implementations of the UEFI UpdateCapsule where: 1) the FW store resides in Secure World controlled flash; 2) there is FW bank duplication (A/B model). Arm published a specification, at Alpha quality, that defines the FW update model and a set of tools catering for 1) and 2) : https://developer.arm.com/-/media/Files/pdf/FWU-PSA-A_DEN0118_1.0ALP3.pdf Arm welcomes feedback on the specification. Please direct feedback to either myself or Grant Likely The FW update work will be discussed at the EBBR biweekly call this Monday (26th April). Regards, Jose 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.

3 years

DTE call today

by Bill Mills

Hello, We have the DTE call today. If Frank is ready to talk about DTB format evolution we will do that. If not we need agenda items. 4PM UK, 11AM US Eastern Zoom Meeting ID: 961 7042 8801 Passcode: 8250 Thanks, Bill -- Bill Mills Principal Technical Consultant, Linaro +1-240-643-0836 TZ: US Eastern Work Schedule: Tues/Wed/Thur

3 years

Fwd: [TF-A] [RFC] TF-A threat model

by François Ozog

Interesting topic. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Zelalem Aweke via TF-A <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 17:14 Subject: [TF-A] [RFC] TF-A threat model To: tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org <tf-a(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org> Hi All, We are releasing the first TF-A threat model document. This release provides the baseline for future updates to be applied as required by developments to the TF-A code base. Please review the document provide comments here: https://review.trustedfirmware.org/c/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a/+/9627. Thanks, Zelalem -- TF-A mailing list TF-A(a)lists.trustedfirmware.org https://lists.trustedfirmware.org/mailman/listinfo/tf-a -- François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog

3 years

Next week's reach out Council

by François Ozog

Hi, next week agenda is: - Industrial Internet Consortium patterns update - Civil Infrastructure Project liaison update - Open System Firmware <https://www.opencompute.org/projects/open-system-firmware> presentation and discussion On this last topic, I'm glad to welcome Ron Minnich who will present Open System Firmware initiatives from Open Compute Project. (Ron has a long history in firmware with creation of CoreBoot and more recently LinuxBoot). SystemReady standards define technical requirements to ensure decoupling between firmware and operating systems. I see OSF efforts complementing the technical standards with firmware business lifecycle to guarantee openness and freedom of use. A checklist <https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Open_System_Firmware/Checklist> helps qualify systems per those openness and freedom of use criteria. I'd like us to be able to have an informed discussion on the checklist (meaning need to read before the call ;-) to see how much it may apply to Trusted Substrate <http://trusted-substrate.org>, and wether it would make sense (if technically feasible) to setup a liaison between our two groups. Cordially, FF PS: I will be sending additional invites for new attendees -- François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog

3 years

Firmware: Sustainability vs planned obsolescence

by François Ozog

Hi even though I am not an "ecology activist", sustainability is a topic dear to me. And it can translate into firmware world... So I am targeting this message to the audience of the two firmware communities I know and hope it is okay to do so. March 2021 was a big date for Open Source Firmware <https://www.opencompute.org/projects/open-system-firmware>: that was the deadline to get " Owners must be able to change firmware and share it -- including any binary components -- with other owners. Starting in March, 2021, OCP badging for servers will require that systems support OSF. " That's a big step towards sustainability in the OCP world. More generally, we should have the capacity to characterize firmware sustainability for post official firmware End Of Life. What about the following : level 0: system cannot evolve or be updated. level 1: the system can be updated to a bootable minimal functionality with open community effort.It may lack some features. For instance, you can still look at your TV but lose Netflix 4K because the owners (in OCP sense) cannot get a signed Netflix TA (either updated or not). level 2: the TAs and other binaries can be made available (signed) to the ones maintaining open source firmware projects (TF-A, OP-TEE, U-Boot...). For instance, owners (in the OCP sense) can get the updated Netflix TA binary (updated or not) and sign it for inclusion. level 3: all firmware components are open source and can thus be community maintained. I think : Level 2 is the right balance between business value and "ecological" goal of sustainability. Level 3 is not mandatory and not the ultimate goal. Is this a good way to characterize sustainability? How to make at least level 2 happen ? Cheers FF -- François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog

3 years

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

boot-architecture April 2021