On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 11:29:11AM +0300, Mikko Rapeli wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 09:35:10AM +0200, Manuel Traut wrote: > > Hi Mikko, > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 05:26:15PM +0300, Mikko Rapeli wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 11:38:06AM +0200, Manuel Traut wrote: > > > > Hi Mikko, > > > > > > > > On 10:09 Wed 29 May , Mikko Rapeli wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:56:04AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 15:00, Mikko Rapeli <mikko.rapeli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 03:24:01PM +0200, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 3:00 PM Jerome Forissier > > > > > > > > <jerome.forissier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 5/27/24 14:13, Jens Wiklander wrote: > > > > > > > Outside of these patches, I think the optee RPC setup with fTPM TA is one area which > > > > > > > currently requires tee-supplicant to be started. Detecting the existence of TPM before > > > > > > > kernel drivers are loaded is possible via the exported EFI logs from firmware to kernel > > > > > > > or ACPI TPM2 table entry, and detecting optee and thus starting tee-supplicant in userspace too. > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing I am trying to find an answer about is why do we need to > > > > > > defer tee-supplicant launch if it's bundled into initrd? Once you > > > > > > detect OP-TEE then tee-supplicant should be launched unconditionally. > > > > > > As per your example below, the motivation here seems to be the TPM2 > > > > > > device dependent on RPMB backend but what if other future systemd > > > > > > services come up and depend on other services offered by > > > > > > tee-supplicant? > > > > > > > > > > There is an annoying depedency between firmware side optee and TAs, and kernel optee driver, > > > > > tee-supplicant in userspace and kernel TA drivers like fTPM. > > > > > > > > > > Kernel fTPM driver and fTPM TA require tee-supplicant in userspace for RPMB, RPC etc. > > > > > > > > > > This patch series is adding kernel side support for RPMB handling so that the dependency to > > > > > tee-supplicant in userspace can be removed. For fTPM use case, there is still the optee RPC > > > > > buffer setup which currently requires tee-supplicant in userspace or fTPM TA will panic. > > > > > > > > > > So yes, currently, tee-supplicant must be started. But it would be great if kernel drivers > > > > > and firmware optee trusted applications would not depend on tee-supplicant running in userspace. > > > > > The startup sequence is really tricky to get right. My fTPM use case is using the TPM device > > > > > to encrypt rootfs and thus all SW components including tee-supplicant need to run early in > > > > > initramfs. Currently also switch from initramfs to main rootfs requires unloading > > > > > fTPM kernel driver and stopping tee-supplicant in initrd, and then starting tee-supplicant > > > > > and loading fTPM kernel driver from main rootfs. udev and automatic module loading for > > > > > fTPM can not be used due to the tee-supplicant userspace dependency. > > > > > > > > I decided to build fTPM as buildin-TA into OP-TEE. RPMB routing is already > > > > implemented in u-boot so it can already write PCR registers. > > > > > > Is build in TA same as early TA? I presume so. > > > > Indeed.. sorry for using the wrong term. > > Ok, no problem. Then we have the same fTPM TA setup. I'm using optee 4.1 > with RPMB kernel support changes from Jens cherry-picked on top. > > > > > With this series and the required changes in OP-TEE and a compiled in fTPM > > > > kernel driver and systemd v256 it is possible to use the fTPM in the initrd > > > > without tee-supplicant. > > > > > > > > Maybe this information is helpful to you, regards > > > > > > This is very interesting and I'm trying to get to the same state, though with > > > fTPM kernel driver as module. With v6 of this patch set and matching optee changes > > > I was not able to make this work as fTPM TA was crashing when loading ftpm kernel driver > > > due to failing RPC allocation, which tee-supplicant was setting up in the whole chain. > > > I'll try to get v7 patches working and test this again on my yocto based setup and kernel 6.6.y. > > > > I'll try today also with v7 and 6.10-rc1 on an i.MX8MM. It should also > > work with fTPM as kernel module if you use systemd in the initrd > > with the new tpm.target in systemd v256. > > Thanks for the details. I'm testing on qemu, rockpi4b (Rockchip rk3399 SoC) and synquacer > (Socionext Developer Box, SC2A11:Cortex-A53 MPCore 24cores). Kernel and rootfs > are from our yocto master branch based Trusted Reference Stack distro > ( https://gitlab.com/Linaro/trusted-reference-stack/trs ) > with kernel 6.6.29 (porting the RPMB v7 patches currently), systemd 255.4 (tpm2.target > backported), tee-supplicant 4.1 etc. I'm switching the initramfs from shell scripts > to systemd currently, but running into various issues. I just use a mkosi generated Debian/sid image.. > UEFI firmware is our Trusted Substrate ( https://gitlab.com/Linaro/trustedsubstrate/meta-ts/ ) This is a cool project! I was not aware of it. Thanks for sharing. > ARM System Ready IR compatible with secure boot and TPM support, u-boot > 2024.04 (except rockpi4b still on 2023.01), optee 4.1, fTPM etc from meta-arm > yocto layer. I am on a Toradex Verdin board with an i.MX8MM SoM. u-boot is still 2024.01, optee_os from Jens referenced branch, with a little change in: lib/libutee/include/user_ta_header.h -#define TA_FLAGS_MASK GENMASK_32(10, 0) +#define TA_FLAGS_MASK GENMASK_32(12, 0) fTPM is from ms-tpm-20-ref.git on github. Need to check what is in the meta-arm. Figured out some problems with this regarding OrPolicies used by systemd-cryptenroll.. > Booting without tee-supplicant has so far only resulted in the fTPM TA panic'ing > because RPC setup is failing. Also the fTPM TA enumation needs to be changed > from current yocto defaults to always discoverable if there is no tee-supplicant: > https://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-arm/tree/meta-arm/recipes-security/optee-ftpm/optee-ftpm/0001-add-enum-to-ta-flags.patch Ah, seems to be the same change than above, just limited to the fTPM TA? Shouldn't it be part of optee_os since it is a capability of it? > I hope to get v7 of these patches into testing today. Was able to test it. But ended also in TA panic. Will share the details in another mail. Regards Manuel
