On 5/27/22 21:24, Alper Nebi Yasak wrote:
On 11/05/2022 18:35, Jerome Forissier wrote:
This commit adds support for the OP-TEE 'tee.bin' v1 format for Rockchip platforms.
Since OP-TEE 3.8.0, tee.bin contains meta-data in a proprietary format in addition to the ELF data. They are essential information for proper initialization of the TEE core, such as the size of the memory region covered by the TEE or a compact representation of runtime relocation data when ASLR is enabled.
With OP-TEE 3.8.0 onwards, 'tee.elf' MUST NOT be used and 'tee.bin' MUST be used instead. Ignoring this recommendation can lead to crashes as described in [3].
Link: [1] https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/commit/5dd1570ac5b0f6563b1a9c074533a19107... Link: [2] https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/blob/3.17.0/scripts/gen_tee_bin.py#L275-L... Link: [3] https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/issues/4542 Signed-off-by: Jerome Forissier jerome.forissier@linaro.org
arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
This might make it slightly harder to convert this file to binman, since it's not as good at deconstructing things.
Yes it is a bit unfortunate, but nothing we can't fix I'm sure. Well, I say this knowing absolutely nothing about binman... ;-)
I can't say I understand OP-TEE OS or its files/formats, so:
Acked-by: Alper Nebi Yasak alpernebiyasak@gmail.com
Thanks, answers to your questions below.
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py index f3224d2555..fcea652388 100755 --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/make_fit_atf.py @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ def generate_atf_fit_dts_bl31(fit_file, bl31_file_name, tee_file_name, dtbs_file num_segments = len(segments)
if tee_file_name:
tee_segments = unpack_elf(tee_file_name)
tee_segments = unpack_tee_file(tee_file_name) for index, entry, paddr, data in tee_segments: append_tee_node(fit_file, num_segments + index + 1, paddr, entry) num_segments = num_segments + len(tee_segments)@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ def generate_atf_binary(bl31_file_name):
def generate_tee_binary(tee_file_name): if tee_file_name:
for index, entry, paddr, data in unpack_elf(tee_file_name):
for index, entry, paddr, data in unpack_tee_file(tee_file_name): file_name = 'tee_0x%08x.bin' % paddr with open(file_name, "wb") as atf: atf.write(data)@@ -194,6 +194,31 @@ def unpack_elf(filename): segments.append((index, e_entry, p_paddr, p_data)) return segments
+def unpack_tee_file(filename):
- if filename.endswith('.elf'):
return unpack_elf(filename)- with open(filename, 'rb') as file:
bin = file.read()- segments = []
- if bin[0:5] == b'OPTE\x01':
# OP-TEE v1 format (tee.bin)init_sz, start_hi, start_lo, _, paged_sz = struct.unpack_from('<5I',bin,0x8)if paged_sz != 0:raise ValueError("OP-TEE paged mode not supported")Is this not feasible/necessary to do, or just not implemented yet?
Just not implemented yet. Pager support is not strictly needed, its use or not depends on the platform and on the threat model. In other words, whether or not it is OK to have the TEE and TAs run in DRAM, usually isolated only from Normal World software by TrustZone or some kind of memory firewall. Pager allows to protect from physical access to the DRAM too. It provides authentication and/or encryption to anything stored outside the internal SRAM of the SoC. Testing this mode on RockPi4 would require some non trivial work. Here I simply focused on implementing the current use case properly.
e_entry = (start_hi << 32) + start_lop_addr = e_entryp_data = bin[0x1c:]if len(p_data) != init_sz:raise ValueError("Invalid file '%s': size mismatch ""(expected %d, have %d)" % (filename, init_sz,len(p_data)))segments.append((0, e_entry, p_addr, p_data))- else:
raise ValueError("Unknown format for TEE file '%s'" % filename)I see an 'output_header_v2' in your link [2], what about that?
v2 is useful only when the OP-TEE pager is used, in which case it is a matter of preference whether to use a single binary and have the loader split it as expected (tee.bin) or use separate binaries instead.
Historically (Jens please correct me if I'm wrong!), there was a single raw binary for OP-TEE: tee.bin, and no pager support. Then pager was added. The build would then create two separate files: tee-pager.bin and tee-pageable.bin (the latter would be zero sized with pager disabled). At the same time a header was introduced in tee.bin to indicate whether or not the file would contain a pageable section (tee.bin consisted in the header + tee-pager.bin + tee-pageable.bin). Later, and for reasons I don't remember exactly (related to the integration with TF-A IIRC), the header was written to its own file and the format of that header changed a bit. So we had tee-header_v2.bin, tee-pager_v2.bin, and tee-pageable_v2.bin. The previous tee-pager.bin and tee-pageable.bin were subsequently deprecated; but tee.bin wasn't. It is still generated today, unchanged with its "v1" header. Note, I'm not sure if tee-pager_v2.bin is different from tee-pager.bin (and same goes for the pageable part), but it doesn't really matter for this discussion.
- return segments
def main(): uboot_elf = "./u-boot" fit_its = sys.stdout @@ -210,11 +235,13 @@ def main(): logging.warning(' Please read Building section in doc/README.rockchip')
if "TEE" in os.environ:
tee_elf = os.getenv("TEE")
tee_file = os.getenv("TEE")- elif os.path.isfile("./tee.bin"):
tee_file = "./tee.bin"
tee_elf = "./tee.elf"
tee_file = "./tee.elf"
tee_elf = ""
tee_file = ""opts, args = getopt.getopt(sys.argv[1:], "o:u:b:t:h") for opt, val in opts:
@@ -225,16 +252,16 @@ def main(): elif opt == "-b": bl31_elf = val elif opt == "-t":
tee_elf = val
tee_file = val elif opt == "-h": print(__doc__) sys.exit(2)dtbs = args
- generate_atf_fit_dts(fit_its, bl31_elf, tee_elf, uboot_elf, dtbs)
- generate_atf_fit_dts(fit_its, bl31_elf, tee_file, uboot_elf, dtbs) generate_atf_binary(bl31_elf)
- generate_tee_binary(tee_elf)
- generate_tee_binary(tee_file)
if __name__ == "__main__": main()