[U-Boot-Users] RFC: extended image formats
Jerry Van Baren
gerald.vanbaren at smiths-aerospace.com
Wed Feb 28 14:51:12 CET 2007
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to figure out what could be done to add (at least in some
> cases) more information to U-Boot images.
>
> In this case, the existing CRC32 checksum is not sufficient;
> therequirement is to use some stronger hashes (md5 or sha1) to verify
> the correctness of the kernel and file system images.
>
> A similar thing happened not so long ago when we discussed how to add
> the OFT blob.
>
> Here some thoughts:
>
> * The original 64 byte header is tabu and cannot be changed to provide
> compatibility to existing versions.
>
> * A quick & dirty hack could use a multi-file image to add - for
> example - the SHA1 checksum as separate image in addition to the
> kernel (and eventually file system) image(s).
>
> Add an OFT blob, and the confusion is perfect.
>
> Seems we need a more structured approach.
>
> I would like to use this opportunity to collect ideas and suggestions
> for a more generalized solution that is flexible and extensible
> enough to handle not only the current , but also future requirements.
> At least some of them ;-)
>
> All input welcome...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
Two possibilities come to mind for using (abusing) the original 64 byte
header:
1) If we put an ASCII-hex hash _as_ the name, we could support a 16 byte
(128 bit) hash. The name would no longer be pronounceable :-P, but it
_would_ be unique. An MD5 hash is typically a 32-character hexadecimal
number. [Ref: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5>]
2) The name is 32 bytes. If we trimmed the maximum name length to 28
bytes, we could use the last 4 bytes as a pointer to a hash. Bleah, not
much/any better than the multi-file approach.
gvb
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list