[PATCH 25/30] arm: imx: Finish migration from CONFIG_SECURE_BOOT to CONFIG_IMX_HAB

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:31:32PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 23:17, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > There are a few remaining places where we say CONFIG_SECURE_BOOT rather
> > than CONFIG_IMX HAB.  Update these instances.
> >
> > Cc: Stefano Babic <sbabic at denx.de>
> > Cc: Fabio Estevam <festevam at gmail.com>
> > Cc: NXP i.MX U-Boot Team <uboot-imx at nxp.com>
> > Cc: Eddy Petrișor <eddy.petrisor at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo at kernel.org>
> > Cc: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Priyanka Jain <priyanka.jain at nxp.com>
> > Fixes: d714a75fd4dc ("imx: replace CONFIG_SECURE_BOOT with CONFIG_IMX_HAB")
> > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> > ---
> > Note that we have one place left for CONFIG_SECURE_BOOT being in use but
> > I think that is shared with PowerPC so I don't think IMX_HAB is the
> > right name.  But perhaps I'm wrong about it being used for PowerPC?
> 
> NACK on this patch.

Note that today CONFIG_SECURE_BOOT is not defined anywhere and the
commit you mention next replaced the only places that set
CONFIG_SECURE_BOOT with CONFIG_IMX_HAB.

> I'm not actually sure what were the cross-architecture problems with
> the CONFIG_SECURE_BOOT name that mandated Stefano to write this patch:
> 
> commit d714a75fd4dcfb0eb8b7e1dd29f43e07113cec0b
> Author: Stefano Babic <sbabic at denx.de>
> Date:   Fri Sep 20 08:47:53 2019 +0200
> 
>     imx: replace CONFIG_SECURE_BOOT with CONFIG_IMX_HAB
> 
>     CONFIG_SECURE_BOOT is too generic and forbids to use it for cross
>     architecture purposes. If Secure Boot is required for imx, this means to
>     enable and use the HAB processor in the soc.
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Stefano Babic <sbabic at denx.de>

The problem is that SECURE_BOOT is very generic.  We have quite a few
different "secure boot" implementations in the tree and another pointed
out what a bad name this one is.  And just to be clear, I'm the only one
(intentionally) touching non-i.MX spots here.

> but going the full way and grouping Layerscape, QorIQ and S32V secure
> boot implementations together with a boot ROM feature available only
> on i.MX 50, 53, 6, 7, 8M and 8MM is demonstrably incorrect.

OK.  I (and others on the thread at the time) were asking for someone to
group things right and provide a new symbol.  What's in there is what we
got, but more details are always better as there were a few cases that
didn't get updated.

> I think the correct solution (beside leaving the CONFIG_SECURE_BOOT
> name alone) would be to merge it, for the Layerscape (ls*) and PowerPC
> instances, with CONFIG_CHAIN_OF_TRUST (defined under
> board/freescale/common/Kconfig). But you or Stefano might argue that
> CHAIN_OF_TRUST is still too generic for a name, and in that case,
> maybe the whole thing can be renamed to CONFIG_FSL_ESBC (ESBC ==
> "External Secure Boot Code", aka image validation code executed by the
> bootloader as opposed to the [internal] boot ROM).

So for this patch here it's a few instances of CONFIG_CSF_SIZE on i.MX
files, a change to S32V that looks quite a lot like i.MX (the file notes
as much) and a layerscape change to CONFIG_U_BOOT_HDR_SIZE.  I'm quite
happy to spin v2 dropping the layerscape part out and waiting to see
what Eddy says for S32V.  We have a CONFIG_NXP_ESBC symbol today, would
that make sense to use in the check on include/configs/ls1021atsn.h and
top-level Makefile for not making u-boot.pbl sometimes?  Thanks again!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20200611/cf65d3f1/attachment.sig>