[U-Boot] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 4/6] spl: mmc: support loading i.MX container format file

[Marek Vasut]

On 6/6/19 9:54 AM, Peng Fan wrote:

[...]

>>>>>>>> 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?
>>
>> I would still like an answer to my question about the security auditing above.
> 
> Sorry. Missed your thread. I not work on ROM stuff, but I think answer is
> no to public. 
I see.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut