From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peng Fan Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 02:33:14 +0000 Subject: [U-Boot] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 4/6] spl: mmc: support loading i.MX container format file In-Reply-To: <20190605135201.GN7705@bill-the-cat> References: <9faa828b-9ebc-8bc7-9232-6ce1ff8f75a8@denx.de> <479ee7a2-8225-7211-46d6-0f9bd2e95881@denx.de> <20190605135201.GN7705@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 4/6] spl: mmc: support loading i.MX > container format file > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 03:24:40PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On 6/5/19 5:03 AM, Peng Fan wrote: > > [...] > > >>>>> It is not duplication of FIT. Container support the similar > > >>>>> function of FIT image, but it is not only that. > > >>>> > > >>>> So what is it ? > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. > > >>> > > >> > nxp.com%2Fdocs%2Fen%2Freference-manual%2FIMX8DQXPRM.pdf&da > > >> ta=02%7C > > >>> > > >> > 01%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7C72216052f4234a93ad1f08d6e95ed782%7C6 > > >> 86ea1d3b > > >>> > > >> > c2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C1%7C636952990895125305&sdat > > >> a=KO%2B0e > > >>> > > >> > E3v%2FkHuJ%2BhR7mBgc4NWXxbMUupfubXXu%2BueIWo%3D&reserv > > >> ed=0 > > >>> Chapter 5 has information about container set and container. > > >> > > >> Thanks, any specific part of those 80 pages ? > > > > > > Figure 5-24. Container Format has a picture about a single container. > > > i.MX8 container also support container sets, support encrypt blob, > > > certificates, SRK management. Support signature to the whole > > > container, no need single image inside container. > > > > Isn't that all supported in fitImage too ? > > This is neither the first nor last time functionality has been essentially > duplicated, sadly, for reasons. I'll share the fit things to our ROM stakeholders, but they take decision on new SoC design. > > > >>>> I don't think I get it. Why would I, as an iMX8 user, want to > > >>>> pick custom new vendor-specific format over years-proven generic > fitImage? > > >>> > > >>> We not against FIT, we already use FIT on i.MX8M, to let spl to > > >>> authenticate FIT image using ROM HAB, not using crypto driver. > > >> > > >> Great > > >> > > >>>> What is the selling point here ? > > >>> > > >>> We would not introduce cypto driver in SPL stage, that means HAB > > >>> FIT and AHAB container needs to be dropped when SPL loading other > images. > > >>> ROM already provides API for bootloader to authenticate images, > > >>> introducing complex crypto driver in SPL could enlarge code size > > >>> and make things complicated. > > >> > > >> Ah I see, so it's all making the whole crypto simpler by offloading > > >> the hard parts into the firmware, which just magically handles > > >> everything , without having much extra code in the SPL ? > > > > > > Yes. Use what ROM provides will make things easier for U-Boot. > > > > Is it possible to perform a security audit on the ROM as easily as on > > U-Boot ? I mean, U-Boot is free software, the source is available, so > > security researchers can easily scrutinize it. Is the ROM ? > > So, here's my two cents (and it may or may not seem contradictory with my > opinions in the secure boot thread going on currently on the Linaro Boot > Architecture list). Yes, it would and IMHO is better when we use free and > open software to solve our problems (and an aside to the RISC-V folks as this > is yet another area they can make the world a better place in). But I am a > believe in dealing with the world as it stands at times too. The question isn't > "can we get NXP to re-spin i.MX8 to use the FIT image format?" as that's > obviously going to be "No.". The question is, "can we support this format in > a clean manner?" and the answer is obviously "Yes.". So please lets keep > that in mind with reviewing the code as at the end of the day it is more > beneficial for this to be supported in mainline U-Boot than only supported in > the vendor tree. Thanks. So I think you agree the current approach. Could I get any A-b or R-b tags from the list? Thanks, Peng. > Thanks! > > -- > Tom