Hi again, On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 9:17 AM Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 3:26 PM Ilias Apalodimas > <ilias.apalodimas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 at 16:13, Enric Balletbo i Serra > > <eballetb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your support. > > > > You're welcome. FWIW I did test this in the past with an AM62x SoC. > > > > Thanks for the info, maybe I can give it a try with my BeaglePlay then... > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 12:01 PM Ilias Apalodimas > > > <ilias.apalodimas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 at 10:21, Enric Balletbo i Serra > > > > <eballetb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ilias, > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2024 at 1:31 AM Ilias Apalodimas > > > > > <ilias.apalodimas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 23:11, Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ilias, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your quick answer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 4:48 PM Ilias Apalodimas > > > > > > > <ilias.apalodimas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Enric, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 12:26, Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetb@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 > > > > > > > > Yes it does look wrong. Our compilation flags are > > > > CFG_RPMB_FS=y CFG_RPMB_FS_DEV_ID=0 CFG_RPMB_WRITE_KEY=y > > > > CFG_RPMB_TESTKEY=y CFG_REE_FS=n CFG_CORE_ARM64_PA_BITS=48 > > > > CFG_SCTLR_ALIGNMENT_CHECK=n > > > > > > > > > > Mine are very similar > > > > > > make CROSS_COMPILE="$CC32" CROSS_COMPILE64="$CC64" \ > > > PLATFORM=k3-j784s4 CFG_ARM64_core=y CFG_CONSOLE_UART=0x8 \ > > > CFG_RPMB_FS_DEV_ID=0 CFG_REE_FS=n CFG_RPMB_FS=y \ > > > CFG_RPMB_WRITE_KEY=y CFG_RPMB_TESTKEY=y \ > > > CFG_STMM_PATH=BL32_AP_MM.fd \ > > > CFG_CORE_HEAP_SIZE=524288 CFG_CORE_DYN_SHM=y CFG_SCTLR_ALIGNMENT_CHECK=n \ > > > CFG_TEE_CORE_LOG_LEVEL=4 CFG_TEE_CORE_DEBUG=y CFG_TEE_TA_LOG_LEVEL=4 > > > > > > There is a difference with CFG_CORE_ARM64_PA_BITS=48 , my platform defines it to > > > > > > core/arch/arm/plat-k3/conf.mk:$(call force,CFG_CORE_ARM64_PA_BITS,36) > > > > > > But I don't think this is the problem. > > > > > > > The testkey etc aren't required if your board has a way of reading the > > > > RPMB key from a secure location -- in fact, using the testkey is not > > > > secure. Is the RPMB programmed on your board? Also can you make sure > > > > CFG_RPMB_FS_DEV_ID needs to be 0? How many sd interfaces your board > > > > has? > > > > > > My board has two interfaces, an eMMC and a SD-card, 0 is indeed the > > > eMMC and I'm using the testkey which I assume was programmed the first > > > time I booted with all this. Unfortunately I lost the traces. But, > > > optee_rpmb works. I.e: > > > > > > => optee_rpmb write test 1234 > > > => optee_rpmb read test 4 > > > Read 4 bytes, value = 1234 > > > > > > > > > > IOW in U-Boot does 'mmc dev 0 && mmc info' print information for the > > > > RPMB partition? > > > > > > > > > > => mmc dev 0 > > > switch to partitions #0, OK > > > mmc0(part 0) is current device > > > => mmc info > > > Device: mmc@4f80000 > > > Manufacturer ID: 13 > > > OEM: 4e > > > Name: G1M15L > > > Bus Speed: 200000000 > > > Mode: HS400 (200MHz) > > > Rd Block Len: 512 > > > MMC version 5.1 > > > High Capacity: Yes > > > Capacity: 29.6 GiB > > > Bus Width: 8-bit DDR > > > Erase Group Size: 512 KiB > > > HC WP Group Size: 8 MiB > > > User Capacity: 29.6 GiB WRREL > > > Boot Capacity: 31.5 MiB ENH > > > RPMB Capacity: 4 MiB ENH > > > Boot area 0 is not write protected > > > Boot area 1 is not write protected > > > => mmc list > > > mmc@4f80000: 0 (eMMC) > > > mmc@4fb0000: 1 > > > > > > Any interaction with efi gives me the same result (printenv -e, > > > efidebug, bootefi ...) > > > > Yes, that makes sense, because variables fail to initialize -- which > > is a core part of bringing up the EFI subsystem. > > > > Can you recompile op-tee with CFG_RPMB_RESET_FAT and try again? > > > > Unfortunately that didn't help, but I don't see this code being run. > Who sets for the first place the uefi variables, is this u-boot > writing them to the rpmb? or is optee itself? > I tried to compare the behaviour between optee_rpmb (works) and efidebug (doesn't worrk). I see that the first thing optee_rpmb command does is open a session against the TA application, something that efidebug doesn't do, shouldn't efidebug do the same to access to the rpmb device and read or write the efi variables? => optee_rpmb read test 4 D/TC:? 0 tee_ta_init_pseudo_ta_session:303 Lookup pseudo TA 023f8f1a-292a-432b-8fc4-de8471358067 D/TC:? 0 ldelf_load_ldelf:110 ldelf load address 0x40007000 D/LD: ldelf:142 Loading TS 023f8f1a-292a-432b-8fc4-de8471358067 F/TC:? 0 trace_syscall:147 syscall #3 (syscall_get_property) F/TC:? 0 trace_syscall:147 syscall #5 (syscall_open_ta_session) D/TC:? 0 ldelf_syscall_open_bin:163 Lookup user TA ELF 023f8f1a-292a-432b-8fc4-de8471358067 (early TA) D/TC:? 0 ldelf_syscall_open_bin:167 res=0 F/TC:? 0 trace_syscall:147 syscall #7 (syscall_invoke_ta_command) F/TC:? 0 read_compressed:178 1024 bytes F/TC:? 0 read_compressed:178 1024 bytes F/TC:? 0 read_compressed:178 1024 bytes F/TC:? 0 read_compressed:178 1024 bytes F/TC:? 0 trace_syscall:147 syscall #11 (syscall_mask_cancellation) F/TC:? 0 trace_syscall:147 syscall #7 (syscall_invoke_ta_command) => efidebug query -bs -rt -nv MMC: no card present mmc_init: -123, time 2002 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 > > > Thanks > > /Ilias > > > > > > => efidebug query -bs -rt -nv > > > 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 > > > ... stuck here ... I need to reset the board > > > > > > Will continue to see if I can get more useful messages > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Enric > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > /Ilias > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
