[PATCH v2 47/50] image: Remove some #ifdefs from image-fit and image-fit-sig

[Simon Glass]

Hi Alex,

On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 15:50, Alex G. <mr.nuke.me at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/6/21 9:24 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Drop the #ifdefs which are easy to remove without refactoring.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > (no changes since v1)
> >
> >   common/Kconfig.boot    | 10 ++++++++++
> >   common/image-fit-sig.c |  8 ++------
> >   common/image-fit.c     |  7 ++++---
> >   3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/common/Kconfig.boot b/common/Kconfig.boot
> > index 03a6e6f214f..a31d9847124 100644
> > --- a/common/Kconfig.boot
> > +++ b/common/Kconfig.boot
> > @@ -191,6 +191,16 @@ config SPL_FIT_SIGNATURE
> >       select SPL_IMAGE_SIGN_INFO
> >       select SPL_FIT_FULL_CHECK
> >
> > +config SPL_FIT_SIGNATURE_MAX_SIZE
> > +     hex "Max size of signed FIT structures in SPL"
> > +     depends on SPL_FIT_SIGNATURE
> > +     default 0x10000000
> > +     help
> > +       This option sets a max size in bytes for verified FIT uImages.
> > +       A sane value of 256MB protects corrupted DTB structures from overlapping
> > +       device memory. Assure this size does not extend past expected storage
> > +       space.
> > +
>
> I can't find an argument of why we'd want a separate
> FIT_SIGNATURE_MAX_SIZE for SPL. This also seems unrelated to the commit
> message of reducing ifdefs.

Often SPL has lower limits, e.g. since there is only so much SRAM, a
large file might indicate some sort of attack.

Regards,
SImon