| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALE0LRtUz8hd4pdR9sX2Sb6tOn=K4wkRnGG9B7f72qU8JFQSYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 22:10:58 +0100
From: Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetb@...hat.com>
To: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
Masahisa Kojima <masahisa.kojima@...aro.org>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org, Manorit Chawdhry <m-chawdhry@...com>,
Udit Kumar <u-kumar1@...com>, "Menon, Nishanth" <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: optee-based efi runtime variable service on TI j784s4 platforms
Hi Ilias,
Thanks for your quick answer.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 4:48 PM Ilias Apalodimas
<ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Enric,
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 12:26, Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetb@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm looking for any advice/clue to help me to progress on enabling
> > TEE-base EFI Runtime Variable Service on TI a j784s4 platforms.
> >
> > I basically followed the steps described in u-boot documentation [1],
> > I enabled some debugging messages but I think I'm at the point that
> > the problem might be in the StandaloneMM application, and I'm not sure
> > how to debug it.
> >
> > What I see is that when I run the tee-supplicant daemon, it looks like
> > the tee_client_open_session() call loops forever and the tee_stmm_efi
> > driver never ends to probe.
> >
> > With debug enabled I got the following messages.
>
> I assume reading and storing variables already works in U-Boot right?
>
Reading and storing variables to the RPMB partition in U-Boot works,
that's using the mmc rpmb command from u-boot, But setting
CONFIG_EFI_MM_COMM_TEE=y in u-boot I end with a similar behaviour
(although I'm not able to debug at u-boot level) What I see is that
u-boot gets stuck
when bootefi bootmgr is invoqued. I can also reproduce the issue with
bootefi hello.
=> run bootcmd
Scanning for bootflows in all bootdevs
Seq Method State Uclass Part Name Filename
--- ----------- ------ -------- ---- ------------------------
----------------
Scanning global bootmeth 'efi_mgr':
( gets stuck here)
or
=> bootefi hello
(gets stuck)
To debug I disabled CONFIG_EFI_MM_COMM_TEE to not get stuck and bypass
the error and go to Linux. My understanding is that
CONFIG_EFI_MM_COMM_TEE is only required to read/write efi variables at
u-boot level but OPTEE is running the StandaloneMM service. Am I
right?
> >
> > # tee-supplicant
> > D/TC:? 0 tee_ta_init_session_with_context:557 Re-open trusted service
> > 7011a688-ddde-4053-a5a9-7b3c4ddf13b8
> > D/TC:? 0 load_stmm:297 stmm load address 0x40004000
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:859 Received FFA version
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> > D/TC:? 0 spm_handle_scall:867 Received FFA direct request
> >
> > And tracing the function calls gives me that:
> >
> > tee_stmm_efi_probe() {
> > tee_client_open_context() {
> > optee_get_version() {
> > tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800)
> > } (ret=0xd)
> > tee_ctx_match(); (ret=0x1)
> > optee_smc_open() {
> > tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800)
> > optee_open() {
> > tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800)
> > } (ret=0x0)
> > } (ret=0x0)
> > } (ret=0xffff000004e71c80)
> > tee_client_open_session() {
> > optee_open_session() {
> > tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800)
> > optee_get_msg_arg() {
> > tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800)
> > tee_shm_get_va(); (ret=0xffff000002909000)
> > } (ret=0xffff000002909000)
> > tee_session_calc_client_uuid(); (ret=0x0)
> > optee_to_msg_param(); (ret=0x0)
> > optee_smc_do_call_with_arg() {
> > tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800)
> > tee_shm_get_va(); (ret=0xffff000002909000)
> > tee_shm_get_va(); (ret=0xffff000002909060)
> > optee_cq_wait_init(); (ret=0xffff000002e55910)
> > optee_smccc_smc(); (ret=0xffff0004)
> > tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800)
> > optee_smccc_smc(); (ret=0xffff0004)
> > tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800)
> > optee_smccc_smc(); (ret=0xffff0004)
> > tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800)
> > optee_smccc_smc(); (ret=0xffff0004)
> > tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800)
> > optee_smccc_smc(); (ret=0xffff0004)
> > ... continues sending this forever ...
> > ... Hit ^C to stop recording ...
> > tee_get_drvdata(); (ret=0xffff000002e55800)
> > optee_smccc_smc() {
> >
> > [1] https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/uefi/uefi.html#using-op-tee-for-efi-variables
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
>
> The most common problem with this is miscompiling the tee_supplicant
> application.
> Since we don't know if the system has an RPMB, we emulate it in the
> tee_supplicant. How did you get the supplicant and can you check if it
> was compiled with RPMB_EMU=0 or 1?
>
I'm using the tee-supplicant provided by the fedora package which is
built with ` -DRPMB_EMU=0`, I think that's correct, right?
Thanks,
Enric
> Thanks
> /Ilias
>
> > Enric
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists