[PATCH 06/18] image: Drop IMAGE_ENABLE_SHA1

[Alex G.]

On 5/20/21 6:17 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 17:13, Alex G. <mr.nuke.me at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/20/21 12:52 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 20:41, Alex G. <mr.nuke.me at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/19/21 4:55 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 11:44, Alex G <mr.nuke.me at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/19/21 11:36 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Alexandru,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 10:38, Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We already have a host Kconfig for SHA1. Use CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SHA1)
>>>>>>>> directly in the code shared with the host build, so we can drop the
>>>>>>>> unnecessary indirection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>      common/image-fit.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>      include/image.h    | 8 --------
>>>>>>>>      2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/common/image-fit.c b/common/image-fit.c
>>>>>>>> index e614643fe3..24e92a8e92 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/common/image-fit.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/common/image-fit.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -1218,7 +1218,7 @@ int calculate_hash(const void *data, int data_len, const char *algo,
>>>>>>>>                                                             CHUNKSZ_CRC32);
>>>>>>>>                     *((uint32_t *)value) = cpu_to_uimage(*((uint32_t *)value));
>>>>>>>>                     *value_len = 4;
>>>>>>>> -       } else if (IMAGE_ENABLE_SHA1 && strcmp(algo, "sha1") == 0) {
>>>>>>>> +       } else if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SHA1) && strcmp(algo, "sha1") == 0) {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This can only work if the my host Kconfig patch comes first. Otherwise
>>>>>>> this code will just be skipped on the host.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was scratching my head too as to why this works in practice, but not
>>>>>> in theory. There is a #define CONFIG_SHA1 in image.h.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although not a perfect fix, we go from two ways to enable SHA1 ("#define
>>>>>> IMAGE_ENABLE_SHA1", and "#define CONFIG_SHA1"), to just one. That's why
>>>>>> I think this change is an improvement, and part of this series.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, we really should not do that...everything needs to be in Kconfig.
>>>>
>>>> I agree for target code. But, as a long term solution, let's look at how
>>>> we can get hash algos in linker lists, like we're proposing to do for
>>>> crytpo algos. Or I could just drop this change in v2.
>>>
>>> Would it not be easier to have a host Kconfig for these? You seem to
>>> be going to extreme lengths to avoid it, but it seems like the
>>> simplest solution, easy to understand, no effect on code size and
>>> scalable to the future.
>>
>> It's easy for the short term in terms if the goal is to get something
>> merged. It just hides more fundamental issues with the code. For
>> ecample, why is there hash_calculate() and clacultae_hash()
> 
> It is just a naming issue, isn't it? They are quite different functions.

Because one resets the watchdog after every CHUNK bytes and the other 
doesn't?

>>
>> I was under the impression that we were agreed on the combination of
>> patches. I won't try to defend your patch from yourself. I'll drop the
>> hash changes from v2 if it helps get things moving along.
> 
> I'm OK with this as a short-term fix to get this series through. But I
> think we are going to end up with a Kconfig solution at some point.
> What do you think?

I think it's possible and reasonable to have common code without host 
Kconfig. coreboot did it.

Alex