[PATCH] introduce CONFIG_DEVICE_TREE_INCLUDES

Mon Nov 8 16:58:44 CET 2021

Hi Roman,

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 at 08:43, Roman Kopytin <Roman.Kopytin at kaspersky.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, I sent patches, please check.
> But before correct emails I sent several test emails.

OK I see them, not copied to me, but I see them in the mailing list, thank you.

Regards,
Simon

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 5:02 AM
> To: Roman Kopytin <Roman.Kopytin at kaspersky.com>
> Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes at prevas.dk>; U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot at lists.denx.de>; Alex Kiernan <alex.kiernan at gmail.com>; Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy at kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce CONFIG_DEVICE_TREE_INCLUDES
>
> Hi Roman,
>
> Good luck! I must get a copy of that BOFH book.
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
>
>
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 at 22:30, Roman Kopytin <Roman.Kopytin at kaspersky.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, all
> > Currently I am waiting some help from our IT infrastructure department.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 4:28 AM
> > To: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes at prevas.dk>
> > Cc: U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot at lists.denx.de>; Alex Kiernan
> > <alex.kiernan at gmail.com>; Roman Kopytin <Roman.Kopytin at kaspersky.com>;
> > Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy at kernel.org>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce CONFIG_DEVICE_TREE_INCLUDES
> >
> > Hi Rasmus,
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Sept 2021 at 02:57, Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes at prevas.dk> wrote:
> > >
> > > The build system already automatically looks for and includes an
> > > in-tree *-u-boot.dtsi when building the control .dtb. However, there
> > > are some things that are awkward to maintain in such an in-tree
> > > file, most notably the metadata associated to public keys used for
> > > verified boot.
> > >
> > > The only "official" API to get that metadata into the .dtb is via
> > > mkimage, as a side effect of building an actual signed image. But
> > > there are multiple problems with that. First of all, the final
> > > U-Boot (be it U-Boot proper or an SPL) image is built based on a
> > > binary image, the .dtb, and possibly some other binary artifacts. So
> > > modifying the .dtb after the build requires the meta-buildsystem
> > > (Yocto, buildroot, whatnot) to know about and repeat some of the
> > > steps that are already known to and handled by U-Boot's build
> > > system, resulting in needless duplication of code. It's also
> > > somewhat annoying and inconsistent to have a .dtb file in the build
> > > folder which is not generated by the command listed in the
> > > corresponding .cmd file (that of course applies to any generated file).
> > >
> > > So the contents of the /signature node really needs to be baked into
> > > the .dtb file when it is first created, which means providing the
> > > relevant data in the form of a .dtsi file. One could in theory put
> > > that data into the *-u-boot.dtsi file, but it's more convenient to
> > > be able to provide it externally: For example, when developing for a
> > > customer, it's common to use a set of dummy keys for development,
> > > while the consultants do not (and should not) have access to the
> > > actual keys used in production. For such a setup, it's easier if the
> > > keys used are chosen via the meta-buildsystem and the path(s)
> > > patched in during the configure step. And of course, nothing
> > > prevents anybody from having DEVICE_TREE_INCLUDES point at files
> > > maintained in git, or for that matter from including the public key
> > > metadata in the *-u-boot.dtsi directly and ignore this feature.
> > >
> > > There are other uses for this, e.g. in combination with
> > > ENV_IMPORT_FDT it can be used for providing the contents of the
> > > /config/environment node, so I don't want to tie this exclusively to
> > > use for verified boot.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes at prevas.dk>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Getting the public key metadata into .dtsi form can be done with a
> > > little scripting (roughly 'mkimage -K' of a dummy image followed by
> > > 'dtc -I dtb -O dts'). I have a script that does that, along with
> > > options to set 'required' and 'required-mode' properties, include
> > > u-boot,dm-spl properties in case one wants to check U-Boot proper
> > > from SPL with the verified boot mechanism, etc. I'm happy to share
> > > that script if this gets accepted, but it's moot if this is rejected.
> > >
> > > I have previously tried to get an fdt_add_pubkey tool accepted [1,2]
> > > to disentangle the kernel and u-boot builds (or u-boot and SPL
> > > builds for that matter!), but as I've since realized, that isn't
> > > quite enough
> > > - the above points re modifying the .dtb after it is created but
> > > before that is used to create further build artifacts still stand.
> > > However, such a tool could still be useful for creating the .dtsi
> > > info without the private keys being present, and my key2dtsi.sh
> > > script could easily be modified to use a tool like that should it
> > > ever appear.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20200211094818.14219-3-rasmus.villemo
> > > es
> > > @prevas.dk/ [2]
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/2184f1e6dd6247e48133c76205feeabe@kasp
> > > er
> > > sky.com/
> > >
> > >  dts/Kconfig          | 9 +++++++++
> > >  scripts/Makefile.lib | 2 ++
> > >  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> >
> > I suggest adding this to the documentation somewhere in
> > doc/develop/devicetree/
> >
> > Getting the key into the U-Boot .dtb is normally done with mkimage, as you say. I don't really understand why this approach is easier.
> >
> > Also, is there any interest in using binman? It is designed to do the 'packaging' step right at the end, when all the bits are available and just need to be put together.
> >
> > I am trying to encourage people to move away from building from source always, to a two-step process:
> >
> > - build all the bits
> > - package them, update devicetree, etc.
> >
> > https://u-boot.readthedocs.io/en/latest/develop/package/index.html
> >
> > BTW if Roman can figure out how to send the patches I think that tool would be useful too.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > diff --git a/dts/Kconfig b/dts/Kconfig index dabe0080c1..593dddbaf0
> > > 100644
> > > --- a/dts/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/dts/Kconfig
> > > @@ -139,6 +139,15 @@ config DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE
> > >           It can be overridden from the command line:
> > >           $ make DEVICE_TREE=<device-tree-name>
> > >
> > > +config DEVICE_TREE_INCLUDES
> > > +       string "Extra .dtsi files to include when building DT control"
> > > +       depends on OF_CONTROL
> > > +       help
> > > +         U-Boot's control .dtb is usually built from an in-tree .dts
> > > +         file, plus (if available) an in-tree U-Boot-specific .dtsi
> > > +         file. This option specifies a space-separated list of extra
> > > +         .dtsi files that will also be used.
> > > +
> > >  config OF_LIST
> > >         string "List of device tree files to include for DT control"
> > >         depends on SPL_LOAD_FIT || MULTI_DTB_FIT diff --git
> > > a/scripts/Makefile.lib b/scripts/Makefile.lib index
> > > 78bbebe7e9..a2accba940 100644
> > > --- a/scripts/Makefile.lib
> > > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.lib
> > > @@ -320,6 +320,8 @@ quiet_cmd_dtc = DTC     $@
> > >  # Bring in any U-Boot-specific include at the end of the file
> > > cmd_dtc = mkdir -p $(dir ${dtc-tmp}) ; \
> > >         (cat $<; $(if $(u_boot_dtsi),echo '$(pound)include
> > > "$(u_boot_dtsi)"')) > $(pre-tmp); \
> > > +       $(foreach f,$(subst $(quote),,$(CONFIG_DEVICE_TREE_INCLUDES)), \
> > > +         echo '$(pound)include "$(f)"' >> $(pre-tmp);) \
> > >         $(CPP) $(dtc_cpp_flags) -x assembler-with-cpp -o $(dtc-tmp) $(pre-tmp) ; \
> > >         $(DTC) -O dtb -o $@ -b 0 \
> > >                 -i $(dir $<) $(DTC_FLAGS) \
> > > --
> > > 2.31.1
> > >