January 2024 - coreboot - mail.coreboot.org

[coreboot - Feature #433] (New) Unify TPM drivers in coreboot
by Michał Żygowski Sept. 7, 2025

Sept. 7, 2025

Issue #433 has been reported by Michał Żygowski. ---------------------------------------- Feature #433: Unify TPM drivers in coreboot https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/433 * Author: Michał Żygowski * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Target version: none * Start date: 2022-10-24 ---------------------------------------- Add an option to compile all drivers for TPM 1.2, 2.0 TIS and CRB. The motivation is to not build multiple coreboot ROMs for each possible TPM supported by the platform. The tasks would include: - runtime TPM detection (probing TPM_INTF_CAPABILITY and TPM_INTERFACE_ID) - rename the TPM driver functions, make them static and expose them as a driver structure, e.g. struct tpm_driver { void (*init)(void); int (*open)(void); int (*close)(void); int (*sendrecv)(const uint8_t *sendbuf, size_t send_size, uint8_t *recvbuf, size_t *recv_len); } - based on the detected TPM, hook the tpm_driver functions to provide the global TPM API: tis_open, tis_close, tis_init, tis_sendrecv. Some additional API to get vendor/device name could also be considered. -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

5 7

[coreboot - Bug #415] (New) RESOURCE_ALLOCATION_TOP_DOWN breaks edk2
by Sean Rhodes May 2, 2025

May 2, 2025

Issue #415 has been reported by Sean Rhodes. ---------------------------------------- Bug #415: RESOURCE_ALLOCATION_TOP_DOWN breaks edk2 https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/415 * Author: Sean Rhodes * Status: New * Priority: Low * Target version: none * Start date: 2022-09-07 * Affected versions: master ---------------------------------------- CB:41957 enabled RESOURCE_ALLOCATION_TOP_DOWN by default, which stopped edk2 from booting. The commit has been reverted, so this ticket is just to post logs. ---Files-------------------------------- resource_allocatorv4.txt (94 KB) -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

3 6

[coreboot - Feature #420] (New) Use standard format of TPM event log
by Krystian Hebel Aug. 7, 2024

Aug. 7, 2024

Issue #420 has been reported by Krystian Hebel. ---------------------------------------- Feature #420: Use standard format of TPM event log https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/420 * Author: Krystian Hebel * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Target version: none * Start date: 2022-10-12 * Related links: [1] https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TCG_PCClientImplementa… [2] https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TCG_PCClient_PFP_r1p05… ---------------------------------------- Currently coreboot uses proprietary format for TPM event log. TCG has standardized log formats, differently for TPM1.2 (aka legacy or SHA1) [1] and TPM2.0 (aka crypto agile) [2], both of which can be parsed by Linux kernel and exposed in sysfs. I don't know of any tool outside of cbmem which can parse coreboot format; this includes payloads which may be interested in continuing chain of trust started by coreboot. Another incompatibility is caused by vboot's assignment of PCRs. Roles of PCRs are roughly specified by TCG in both of mentioned documents, they are more or less compatible with each other, but not with current coreboot code. These changes could break assumptions made by existing platforms, so they should be made as Kconfig options. This is a tracking issue to collect subtasks that need to be done in order to support standard event log formats. -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

4 12

QEMU x86 i440fx/piix4 build fails for >= 32MB ROMs - Assertion IS_HOST_SPACE_ADDRESS(host_space_address) failed
by Mike Banon Feb. 20, 2024

Feb. 20, 2024

If I use a default config for i440fx/piix4, building a 16MB ROM works fine, but 32MB or 64MB doesn't work anymore: ... CC postcar/southbridge/intel/common/rtc.o LINK cbfs/fallback/postcar.debug OBJCOPY cbfs/fallback/romstage.elf CREATE build/mainboard/emulation/qemu-i440fx/cbfs-file.vqaXlP.out (from /home/my_custom_path_to/coreboot/.config) CC+STRIP src/lib/cbfs_master_header.c OBJCOPY cbfs/fallback/bootblock.elf OBJCOPY bootblock.raw.elf OBJCOPY bootblock.raw.bin Created CBFS (capacity = 33553892 bytes) BOOTBLOCK CBFS cbfs_master_header CBFS fallback/romstage cbfstool: /home/my_custom_path_to/coreboot/util/cbfstool/cbfstool.c:1145: cbfstool_convert_mkstage: Assertion `IS_HOST_SPACE_ADDRESS(host_space_address)' failed. make: *** [Makefile.inc:1116: build/coreboot.pre] Aborted -- Best regards, Mike Banon Open Source Community Manager of 3mdeb - https://3mdeb.com/

6 11

[coreboot - Bug #522] (New) `region_overlap()` function might not work as expected due to an integer overflow in `region_end()` function.
by Vadim Zaliva Feb. 10, 2024

Feb. 10, 2024

Issue #522 has been reported by Vadim Zaliva. ---------------------------------------- Bug #522: `region_overlap()` function might not work as expected due to an integer overflow in `region_end()` function. https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/522 * Author: Vadim Zaliva * Status: New * Priority: Normal * Category: coreboot common code * Target version: none * Start date: 2023-12-27 * Affected versions: master ---------------------------------------- `region_overlap()` function checks whether or not two memory regions overlap. Memory regions are represented as a region struct that contains the region's offset and size. This function then relies on `region_end()` function to compute the end of the region. `region_end()` function is susceptible to an integer overflow, which might result in the incorrect behaviour of `region_overlap()` function. An example of inputs that lead to wrong behaviour: ``` struct region r1 = {SIZE_MAX - 10, 20}; struct region r2 = {SIZE_MAX - 20, 15}; ``` It returns 0, but since the regions actually overlap, it should return 1. `region_overlap()` function is used in `smm_region_overlaps_handler()` function, which is itself used in SMI handlers to validate address values that come from an untrusted environment. This is necessary to prevent security vulnerabilities such as described in [BARing the System by Yuriy Bulygin, Oleksandr Bazhaniuk et al.](https://www.c7zero.info/stuff/REConBrussels2017_BARing_the_system.pdf) We do not have an example of an exploit based on this incorrect behaviour and are aware of the existence of one. However, theoretically, this could lead to security vulnerabilities. This bug was found during an ongoing [Coreboot Formal Verification Project](https://zaliva.org/UCSC-Twisted-Presentation-20231211.pdf), which aims to prove some important security properties of the coreboot’s SMI handler for the Gemini Lake/Octopus platform using Coq proof assistant and Verified Software Toolchain framework. -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

6 16

[coreboot - Bug #121] T520: Hangs in OS
by Patrick Rudolph Jan. 31, 2024

Jan. 31, 2024

Issue #121 has been updated by Patrick Rudolph. It might be possible that testing on my side was a false positive and I was just lucky that the issue didn't appear within time. As it's unclear what the issue is about I'm just poking in the dark, comparing the reference code (MRC.bin) with coreboot's native code. Anything that could help narrowing it down as described here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/121#note-80 would help to fix it. ---------------------------------------- Bug #121: T520: Hangs in OS https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/121#change-1742 * Author: Firstname Lastname * Status: In Progress * Priority: Normal * Category: chipset configuration * Start date: 2017-06-09 * Affected hardware: SNB, IVY * Affected OS: - ---------------------------------------- I have been running coreboot since 2017.04.15 and have experienced hangs ever since then. It was suggested by folk on the IRC that I run memtest to check for incorrect raminit causing errors, however I have run memtest for 12 hours straight with no errors. Due to the ambiguous nature of the hangs (immediate freeze with no warning signs, audio gets stuck repeating the last 50ms or so of noise, not sure what this effect is called) I don't have much useful information other than the .config and dmesg. However one thing I can say with high confidence is that the hangs occur significantly more frequently in Linux (*buntu distros) than Windows 10. Within an hour of launching Linux a hang is likely, whereas Windows typically runs for many hours before a hang occurs. I considered this an insignificant anecdotal anomaly at first but over the course of the nearly 2 months I have been running coreboot it seems to be a solid trend. The hangs occur anywhere, typically during mere desktop usage or basic web browsing. Additionally there is another form of hang I experience where the screen goes black except for some sort of graphical corruption down the left side (http://i.imgur.com/4zWrlpX.jpg) whether this is related to the more common total freeze hangs I don't know but I figured I should include it nonetheless. These hangs only occur about 1:20 compared to the regular hangs. ---Files-------------------------------- config (20.7 KB) dmesg.txt (57.3 KB) cbmem-raminit.txt (62 KB) lspci.txt (29.6 KB) cpuinfo.txt (3.94 KB) defconfig (1023 Bytes) defconfig (699 Bytes) -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: https://ticket.coreboot.org/my/account

2 1

2024-01-24 - coreboot Leadership Meeting Minutes
by mina＠coreboot.org Jan. 25, 2024

Jan. 25, 2024

# 2024-01-24 - coreboot Leadership Meeting ## Attendees Martin Roth, Felix Singer, Julius Werner, Arthur Heymans, David Hendricks, Jonathan Hall, Matt DeVillier, Felix Held, Patrick Georgi, Werner Zeh, Mina Asante, Nicholas Chin, Subrata Banik, Nico Huber, Marshall Dawson, Maximilian Brune. ## Open Action Items * 2024-01-10 * [Open] Werner: Push patch based on https://ticket.coreboot.org/issues/522 * Nico: https://review.coreboot.org/q/topic:enforce_region_api * [Open] Daniel: Look at how we want to localize (non console) strings for coreboot. Long term project. * 2023-11-01 * [Started] Martin: Shallow submodules - document & test, then update submodules if testing goes well. Additionally look at whether the .branch option helps. * We can save over 900MB by using shallow submodules. * [Projects & RFCs](https://docs.google.com/document/d/15H2m4swdESSgGaIuINOePkyst8b39Y7Lu…. * Making progress - see email thread. * 2023-10-4 * Martin: Write a tutorial for gerrit - Feel free to help.[Started](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8igNdgBG5_Qlr4kKRtlbpKa…. * [Open] OSFF: Look into making a video about using gerrit. * Discussed with Christian who felt this was a good plan. * Look at next year. * [Open] Martin: Write a document about vendorcode submodules. ## Minutes ### [Martin] [Review corebootprojects](https://docs.google.com/document/d/15H2m4swdESSgGaIuINOeP…. * See coreboot projects document ### [Martin] Review coreboot RFCs in gerrit * https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/57861 * Abandon * https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/62015 * Please review. ### [Martin & Felix]: coreboot infra discussion: - Is there any reason to consider moving to external services like gerrithub & github? - No? - coreboot.org hosts some private repos. Some cloud services claim ownership over everything. - Hidden costs? - Move Jenkins to a separate server - Can we use a build server, or is that too much of a security risk? - Some maintenance tasks are co-hosted. - What’s the problem if jenkins gets hacked? - Patches get marked as verified. - Can we reduce the saved logs that are no longer needed and only keep the ones that are important? - Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a way to do that. Jenkins doesn’t have separate controls for even passed & failed builds, let alone builds that have been superseded by newer builds. * Decision: Rent a dedicated server with ECC memory and hard drives for storage. Start looking at moving jenkins over. We can look at moving the other services in the future. ## Hetzner servers “Ideal” machine for coreboot services * 8 cores with SMT * 64 GiB ECC Memory * 2x 512 GB NVMe drives RAID 1 * 2x 12 TB HDDs RAID1 * 12TB because 6TB drives are €17/month, 12 TB drives are €23. This can be used for backups & Jenkins logs/artifacts. * We could probably get away without a 2nd drive & RAID, but it seems more professional to have the redundancy. ### Hetzner AMD servers |[SX134] Mid-range Client CPU|[AX52] Mid-range Client CPU|[AX102] High-End Client CPU|[AX161] Server CPU| |:-------------------------- |:--------------------------|:--------------------------|:---------------- | | € 260.37 Germany | € 128.04 Germany | € 176.83 Germany | €240 Germany | | € 247.28 Finland | € 122.09 Finland | € 170.88 Finland | €227 Finland | | | | | | | AMD Ryzen 7 3700X | AMD Ryzen 7 7700 | AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D | AMD EPYC7502P | | 8 Cores | 8 Cores | 16 Cores | 32 Cores | | | | | | | 128 GiB DDR4 ECC | 64 GiB DDR5 ECC | 128 GiB DDR5 ECC | 128 GiB DDR4 ECC | | | | | | | 2x 960 GB NVMe | 2x 1 TB NVMe | 2x 1.9 TB NVMe | 2x 1 TB NVMe | | | | | | | 10x 16 TB SATA HDD | 2x 12 TB SATA HDD | 2x 12 TB SATA HDD | 2x 12 TB SATAHDD | | | | | | * Here are relevant links to Hetzner AMD servers: - [SX134](https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/sx134/configurator#) - [AX52](https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/ax52/configurator#) - [AX102](https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/ax102/configurator#) - [AX161](https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/ax161/configurator#) ### Hetzner Intel Servers | [EX44] Mid-range Client CPU | [EX101] High-end Client CPU | [EX130-R] Server CPU | |:----------------------------|:----------------------------|:---------------------| | € 99.48 Germany | € 153.03 Germany | € 212.53 Germany | | € 93.53 Finland | € 147.08 Finland | € 206.58 Finland | | | | | | Intel® Core™ i5-13500 | Intel® Core™ i9-13900 | Intel Xeon Gold 5412U| | 6 P-cores 8 E-cores | 8 P-cores 16 E-cores | 24-cores | | | | | | 64 GiB DDR4 non-ECC | 64 GiB DDR5 ECC | 256 GiB DDR5 ECC | | | | | | 2 x 512 GB (Gen4) | 2 x 1.92 TB (Gen4) | 2 x 1.9 TB (Gen4) | | | | | | 2x 12 TB SATA HDD | 2x 12 TB SATA HDD | 2x 12 TB SATA HDD | | | | | * Here are relevant links to Hetzner Intel Servers: - [EX44](https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/ex44/configurator#) - [EX101](https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/ex101/configurator#) - [EX130-R](https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/ex130-r/configurator#) ### [SimonG] (cannot attend this week, so will skip Coreboot Control Block) # Next meeting * February 7, 2024. * [Meeting link](https://meet.google.com/pyt-newq-rbb) * [coreboot Calendar](https://coreboot.org/calendar.html) # Notice * Decisions shown here are not necessarily final, and are based on the current information available. If there are questions or comments about decisions made, or additional information to present, please put it on the leadership meeting agenda and show up if possible to discuss it. Of course items may also be discussed on the mailing list, but as it's difficult to interpret tone over email, controversial topics frequently do not have good progress in those discussions. For particularly difficult issues, it may be best to try to schedule another meeting. # coreboot leadership meeting minutes * [2024-01-24](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NRXqXcLBp5pFkHiJbrLdv3Spqh1….

1 0

coreboot Meetings Announcement And Agenda Call
by mina＠coreboot.org Jan. 22, 2024

Jan. 22, 2024

Dear community, Please note that the upcoming coreboot leadership meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 24, 2024. [1] You are welcome to update the agenda items with matters you wish to see addressed during the meeting. [2] ## Current Agenda Items ### Felix and Martin want to talk servers again [1] (https://www.coreboot.org/calendar.html) [2] (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NRXqXcLBp5pFkHiJbrLdv3Spqh1Hu086HYkKrgK… .4ddv57gdsocp)

1 0

Shallow submodules
by Martin Roth Jan. 21, 2024

Jan. 21, 2024

One of the tasks I've had in my queue for a bit is to look into shallow submodules for coreboot. TLDR, we can decrease the submodule data size by over 900GB by using shallow submodules. The idea behind shallow submodules is that by default, we don't pull down as much data. For most submodules, most people typically only use the single commit pointed to by the submodule pointer. This means that people are spending time pulling down commits and then storing data that they don't typically need. The downside of shallow submodules (and shallow git repos in general) is that they don't contain the full data for the repository, so you can't immediately look at the full history or check out other versions. There are a couple of ways to limit the amount of data being fetched by a git repository. - You can fetch a single branch - You can fetch a limited amount of the git repo's history, either by date or by number of commits. This explores those possibilities. Currently if you download everything in the coreboot tree, along with the full submodules you get 1.4GB of data: 226MB of data after downloading the just coreboot repo, but before downloading submodules. Then another 1.2GB of data for all of the submodules. Changing the submodules to pull down a depth of 1 commit, we fetch just 208MB of data, a much more reasonable size than 1.2GB Pulling down the full branch used for each submodule increases the submodule size to 769MB. Here's a spreadsheet with the submodule size data, along for recommendations for each. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DAnFFnoLxdLE15CsUTE_AuCZeKG-UdrBndi… <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DAnFFnoLxdLE15CsUTE_AuCZeKG-UdrBndi…> Submodules recommended to use --depth=1 are: arm-trusted-firmware, intel-sec-tools, stm, chromeec, blobs, fsp, vboot All other submodules would fetch the current branch. My thought is that we set the default for each submodule to the recommended value in the sheet, then we can add a Make target or Kconfig option that pulls down the rest, for anyone who wants the full data. Once you've pulled down the entire history of a repo, it won't get removed, so the update (mostly) only needs to be done once for historic data. You'd need to do it again after any submodule update to get the full recent commit history though. Unrelated to the submodules or any proposed changes, to thin the coreboot repo out a bit, you can limit how far back the coreboot history goes, and ignore branches other than main by running a command like this: `git clone https://review.coreboot.org/coreboot.git coreboot-https --shallow-since=2020-01-01 --branch=main --single-branch` This pulls down 127MB of data instead of the full 226MB. Obviously you can change the date as desired to get more or less history. If at some point, you decide you want the rest of the data for that repo, you can run `git fetch --unshallow`. One note on pulling less history for the coreboot repo - Make sure you get the latest tag, or your coreboot version id will be wrong and confusing. Let me know what you think about updating the submodules as recommended. Martin

5 7

coreboot Meetings Announcement And Agenda Call
by mina＠coreboot.org Jan. 19, 2024

Jan. 19, 2024

Dear community, We are pleased to announce that the upcoming cooreboot leadership meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday, January 24, 2024. [1] Please take a moment to update the agenda items with matters you wish to see addressed during the meeting. [2] [1](https://www.coreboot.org/calendar.html) [2](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NRXqXcLBp5pFkHiJbrLdv3Spqh1Hu086HYkK…

1 0