| 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: <CALE0LRvN3tYgWig1XnCiAZvdzE8x=cdLanGxbUvpPr5nfexSPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:20:46 +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>, 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>,
Masahisa Kojima <kojima.masahisa@...ionext.com>
Subject: Re: optee-based efi runtime variable service on TI j784s4 platforms
Hi Ilias,
On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 1:31 AM Ilias Apalodimas
<ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 23:11, Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetb@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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,
>
> Are you talking about env variables? Perhaps you store them in the mmc
> and not the RPMB partition?
> There's some information here [0]
>
> > 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?
>
> U-Boot has two ways of storing EFI variables [0] . You can either
> store them in a file or the RPMB partition. The correct thing to do,
> since you want to use the RPMB, is enable CONFIG_EFI_MM_COMM_TEE. I am
> not sure why the hand happens, but one thing we can improve is figure
> out why it hangs and print a useful message.
> There are a number of reasons that might lead to a failure. Is the
> RPMB key programmed on your board? Have a look at this [1] in case it
> helps
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > # 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
>
> If I had to guess, OP-TEE doesn't store the variables in the RPMB, can
> you compile it with a bit more debugging enabled?
>
Here is a log with CFG_TEE_CORE_LOG_LEVEL=4, CFG_TEE_CORE_DEBUG=y and
CFG_TEE_TA_LOG_LEVEL=4
https://paste.centos.org/view/eed83a5b
At the beginning of the log I see
D/TC:0 0 check_ta_store:449 TA store: "REE"
Which looks wrong to me as I built optee with:
CFG_REE_FS=n
CFG_RPMB_FS_DEV_ID=0
CFG_RPMB_FS=y
I'll try to add some more prints to verify if REE is used as a store
system, I assume this should say something about RPMB. Am I right with
this?
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> >
>
> Yes, this is correct. We fixed the Fedora package to compile the
> supplicant correctly a while back.
>
> [0] https://www.linaro.org/blog/uefi-secureboot-in-u-boot/
> [1] https://apalos.github.io/Protected%20UEFI%20variables%20with%20U-Boot.html#Protected%20UEFI%20variables%20with%20U-Boot
>
>
> Regards
> /Ilias
> > Thanks,
> > Enric
> >
> > > Thanks
> > > /Ilias
> > >
> > > > Enric
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists