[U-Boot] RSA in U-Boot
takahiro.akashi at linaro.org
Wed Jun 5 05:27:32 UTC 2019
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:48:42PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Thank you for your comments.
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:47:56AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Dear Akashi Takahiro,
> > In message <20190517001206.GX11160 at linaro.org> you wrote:
> > >
> > > > Who: usually the responsible custodians
> > >
> > > "Custodians" don't always mean sub-system maintainers. Right?
> > It's just a different name for the same thing.
> > > In fact, I have already imported relevant kernel code into U-Boot
> > > and it now works perfectly with my experimental UEFI secure boot patch,
> > > but see the total size (and numbers) of files imported is quite big.
> > > I wonder who is willing to maintain them:
> > ...
> > > 37 files changed, 6409 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > Well, if you compare for example against libressl-portable , then
> > this git repository has 180 files with more than 20,000 lines.
> I think that there are two different approaches in using
> external code (library).
> 1.import necessary source files into U-Boot repository, customize them
> and build them with the rest of U-Boot
> 2.build it as a static library, either totally outside of U-Boot
> or as a git submodule, and link it, i.e. only needed binary blobs,
> to U-Boot.
> (I don't know any existing libraries like this in U-Boot though.)
> We can adopt only (1) for kernel code, but *in general* (2) as well
> for a library. That way, we may potentially save/minimize our own
> maintenance cost, again *in general.*
> Those said, it seems to me that, gnutls, for instance, is not well
> optimized for smaller (or purpose-specific) systems. For example,
> _wrap_nettle_pk_verify(), public key verification function, supports
> not only RSA, but also DSA, ECDSA and so on with no "opt-out" options
> while UEFI secure boot only needs and supports RSA.
> > We are adding a lot of functionality, and anyone who wants to use
> > this will have to pay the price. But this is what I mentioned
> > before: I think the kernel code has already been tweaked with an
> > eye on resource consumption, while standard public libraries have
> > not.
> I'm not very sure about your last statement above, but as far as
> the customisability is concerned some libraries may have an issue
> in (2) as I mentioned above.
> In this sense, I still want to seek a possibility of using other
> smaller libraries, like mbedTLS.
> (mbedTLS has another issue, lacking pkcs7 parser.)
> > The kernel code may be big, but I would be surprised if there are
> > smaller and leaner alternatives with similar quality?
> > As for who is willing to maintain it: I have no idea. Usually it
> > turns out to be the original implementoer / who pushed the code
> > upstream into U-Boot.
> Okay, but for most of examples you mentioned as linux-origin code,
> there are no explicit maintainers. Right?
Do you have any further comments regarding maintainability?
(The *quality*, or trustworthiness, of the original code is
an orthogonal issue.)
> -Takahiro Akashi
> > Best regards,
> > Wolfgang Denk
> > --
> > DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
> > HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> > Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
> > miracle: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or
> > accomplishment. - Webster's Dictionary
More information about the U-Boot