| | invocations. |
| | This can also be an endpoint emitting |
| | FF-A function invocations to another endpoint while|
-| | the latter in not in a state to receive it (e.g. a |
+| | the latter is not in a state to receive it (e.g. a |
| | SP sends a direct request to the normal world early|
| | while the normal world is not booted yet). |
| | - the SPMC state itself by employing unexpected |
+------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
| ``Total Risk Rating`` | High (12) | High (12) | |
+------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
-| ``Mitigations`` | The SPMC may be vulnerable to invalid state |
-| | transitions for itself or while handling an SP |
-| | state. The FF-A v1.1 specification provides a |
-| | guidance on those state transitions (run-time |
-| | model). The TF-A SPMC will be hardened in future |
-| | releases to follow this guidance. |
-| | Additionally The TF-A SPMC mitigates the threat by |
-| | runs of the Arm `FF-A ACS`_ compliance test suite. |
+| ``Mitigations`` | The TF-A SPMC provides mitigation against such |
+| | threat by following the guidance for partition |
+| | runtime models as described in FF-A v1.1 EAC0 spec.|
+| | The SPMC performs numerous checks in runtime to |
+| | prevent illegal state transitions by adhering to |
+| | the partition runtime model. |
+------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| | the SPMC, the latter is hardened to prevent |
| | its internal state or the state of an SP to be |
| | revealed through a direct message response. |
-| | Further FF-A v1.1 guidance about run time models |
-| | and partition states will be implemented in future |
-| | TF-A SPMC releases. |
+| | Further, SPMC performs numerous checks in runtime |
+| | on the basis of the rules established by partition |
+| | runtime models to stop any malicious attempts by |
+| | an endpoint to extract internal state of another |
+| | endpoint. |
+------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| | execution context. |
+------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
----------------
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ID | 19 |
++========================+====================================================+
+| ``Threat`` | **A malicious endpoint may abuse FFA_RUN call to |
+| | resume or turn on other endpoint execution |
+| | contexts, attempting to alter the internal state of|
+| | SPMC and SPs, potentially leading to illegal state |
+| | transitions and deadlocks.** |
+| | An endpoint can call into another endpoint |
+| | execution context using FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ |
+| | ABI to create a call chain. A malicious endpoint |
+| | could abuse this to form loops in a call chain that|
+| | could lead to potential deadlocks. |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Diagram Elements`` | DF1, DF2, DF4 |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Affected TF-A | SPMC, SPMD |
+| Components`` | |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Assets`` | SPMC state, SP state, Scheduling cycles |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Threat Agent`` | NS-Endpoint, S-Endpoint |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Threat Type`` | Tampering, Denial of Service |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Application`` | ``Server`` | ``Mobile`` | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Impact`` | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Likelihood`` | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Total Risk Rating`` | Medium (9) | Medium (9) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Mitigations`` | The TF-A SPMC provides mitigation against such |
+| | threats by following the guidance for partition |
+| | runtime models as described in FF-A v1.1 EAC0 spec.|
+| | The SPMC performs numerous checks in runtime to |
+| | prevent illegal state transitions by adhering to |
+| | the partition runtime model. Further, if the |
+| | receiver endpoint is a predecessor of current |
+| | endpoint in the present call chain, the SPMC denies|
+| | any attempts to form loops by returning FFA_DENIED |
+| | error code. Only the primary scheduler is allowed |
+| | to turn on execution contexts of other partitions |
+| | though SPMC does not have the ability to |
+| | scrutinize its identity. Secure partitions have |
+| | limited ability to resume execution contexts of |
+| | other partitions based on the runtime model. Such |
+| | attempts cannot compromise the integrity of the |
+| | SPMC. |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ID | 20 |
++========================+====================================================+
+| ``Threat`` | **A malicious endpoint can perform a |
+| | denial-of-service attack by using FFA_INTERRUPT |
+| | call that could attempt to cause the system to |
+| | crash or enter into an unknown state as no physical|
+| | interrupt could be pending for it to be handled in |
+| | the SPMC.** |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Diagram Elements`` | DF1, DF2, DF5 |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Affected TF-A | SPMC, SPMD |
+| Components`` | |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Assets`` | SPMC state, SP state, Scheduling cycles |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Threat Agent`` | NS-Endpoint, S-Endpoint |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Threat Type`` | Tampering, Denial of Service |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Application`` | ``Server`` | ``Mobile`` | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Impact`` | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Likelihood`` | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Total Risk Rating`` | Medium (9) | Medium (9) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Mitigations`` | The TF-A SPMC provides mitigation against such |
+| | attack by detecting invocations from partitions |
+| | and simply returning FFA_ERROR status interface. |
+| | SPMC only allows SPMD to use FFA_INTERRUPT ABI to |
+| | communicate a pending secure interrupt triggered |
+| | while execution was in normal world. |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ID | 21 |
++========================+====================================================+
+| ``Threat`` | **A malicious secure endpoint might deactivate a |
+| | (virtual) secure interrupt that was not originally |
+| | signaled by SPMC, thereby attempting to alter the |
+| | state of the SPMC and potentially lead to system |
+| | crash.** |
+| | SPMC maps the virtual interrupt ids to the physical|
+| | interrupt ids to keep the implementation of virtual|
+| | interrupt driver simple. |
+| | Similarly, a malicious secure endpoint might invoke|
+| | the deactivation ABI more than once for a secure |
+| | interrupt. Moreover, a malicious secure endpoint |
+| | might attempt to deactivate a (virtual) secure |
+| | interrupt that was signaled to another endpoint |
+| | execution context by the SPMC even before secure |
+| | interrupt was handled. |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Diagram Elements`` | DF1, DF5 |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Affected TF-A | SPMC |
+| Components`` | |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Assets`` | SPMC state, SP state |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Threat Agent`` | S-Endpoint |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Threat Type`` | Tampering |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Application`` | ``Server`` | ``Mobile`` | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Impact`` | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Likelihood`` | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Total Risk Rating`` | Medium (9) | Medium (9) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Mitigations`` | At initialization, the TF-A SPMC parses the |
+| | partition manifests to find the target execution |
+| | context responsible for handling the various |
+| | secure physical interrupts. The TF-A SPMC provides |
+| | mitigation against above mentioned threats by: |
+| | |
+| | - Keeping track of each pending virtual interrupt |
+| | signaled to an execution context of a secure |
+| | secure partition. |
+| | - Denying any deactivation call from SP if there is|
+| | no pending physical interrupt mapped to the |
+| | given virtual interrupt. |
+| | - Denying any deactivation call from SP if the |
+| | virtual interrupt has not been signaled to the |
+| | current execution context. |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ID | 22 |
++========================+====================================================+
+| ``Threat`` | **A malicious secure endpoint might not deactivate |
+| | a virtual interrupt signaled to it by the SPMC but |
+| | perform secure interrupt signal completion. This |
+| | attempt to corrupt the internal state of the SPMC |
+| | could lead to an unknown state and further lead to |
+| | system crash.** |
+| | Similarly, a malicious secure endpoint could |
+| | deliberately not perform either interrupt |
+| | deactivation or interrupt completion signal. Since,|
+| | the SPMC can only process one secure interrupt at a|
+| | time, this could choke the system where all |
+| | interrupts are indefinitely masked which could |
+| | potentially lead to system crash or reboot. |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Diagram Elements`` | DF1, DF5 |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Affected TF-A | SPMC |
+| Components`` | |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Assets`` | SPMC state, SP state, Scheduling cycles |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Threat Agent`` | S-Endpoint |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Threat Type`` | Tampering, Denial of Service |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Application`` | ``Server`` | ``Mobile`` | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Impact`` | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Likelihood`` | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Total Risk Rating`` | Medium (9) | Medium (9) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Mitigations`` | The TF-A SPMC does not provide mitigation against |
+| | such threat. This is a limitation of the current |
+| | SPMC implementation and needs to be handled in the |
+| | future releases. |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ID | 23 |
++========================+====================================================+
+| ``Threat`` | **A malicious endpoint could leverage non-secure |
+| | interrupts to preempt a secure endpoint, thereby |
+| | attempting to render it unable to handle a secure |
+| | virtual interrupt targetted for it. This could lead|
+| | to priority inversion as secure virtual interrupts |
+| | are kept pending while non-secure interrupts are |
+| | handled by normal world VMs.** |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Diagram Elements`` | DF1, DF2, DF3, DF5 |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Affected TF-A | SPMC, SPMD |
+| Components`` | |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Assets`` | SPMC state, SP state, Scheduling cycles |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Threat Agent`` | NS-Endpoint |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Threat Type`` | Denial of Service |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Application`` | ``Server`` | ``Mobile`` | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Impact`` | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Likelihood`` | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Total Risk Rating`` | Medium (9) | Medium (9) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Mitigations`` | The TF-A SPMC alone does not provide mitigation |
+| | against such threats. System integrators must take |
+| | necessary high level design decisions that takes |
+| | care of interrupt prioritization. The SPMC performs|
+| | its role of enabling SPs to specify appropriate |
+| | action towards non-secure interrupt with the help |
+| | of partition manifest based on the guidance in the |
+| | FF-A v1.1 EAC0 specification. |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ID | 24 |
++========================+====================================================+
+| ``Threat`` | **A secure endpoint depends on primary scheduler |
+| | for CPU cycles. A malicious endpoint could delay |
+| | the secure endpoint from being scheduled. Secure |
+| | interrupts, if not handled timely, could compromise|
+| | the state of SP and SPMC, thereby rendering the |
+| | system unresponsive.** |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Diagram Elements`` | DF1, DF2, DF3, DF5 |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Affected TF-A | SPMC, SPMD |
+| Components`` | |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Assets`` | SPMC state, SP state, Scheduling cycles |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Threat Agent`` | NS-Endpoint |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+| ``Threat Type`` | Denial of Service |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Application`` | ``Server`` | ``Mobile`` | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Impact`` | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Likelihood`` | Medium (3) | Medium (3) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Total Risk Rating`` | Medium (9) | Medium (9) | |
++------------------------+------------------+-----------------+---------------+
+| ``Mitigations`` | The TF-A SPMC does not provide full mitigation |
+| | against such threats. However, based on the |
+| | guidance provided in the FF-A v1.1 EAC0 spec, SPMC |
+| | provisions CPU cycles to run a secure endpoint |
+| | execution context in SPMC schedule mode which |
+| | cannot be preempted by a non-secure interrupt. |
+| | This reduces the dependency on primary scheduler |
+| | for cycle allocation. Moreover, all further |
+| | interrupts are masked until pending secure virtual |
+| | interrupt on current CPU is handled. This allows SP|
+| | execution context to make progress even upon being |
+| | interrupted. |
++------------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
+
+--------------
-*Copyright (c) 2021, Arm Limited. All rights reserved.*
+*Copyright (c) 2021-2022, Arm Limited. All rights reserved.*
.. _Arm Firmware Framework for Arm A-profile: https://developer.arm.com/docs/den0077/latest
.. _Secure Partition Manager: ../components/secure-partition-manager.html
projects / arm-tf.git / commitdiff