[PATCH 0/2] RFC: add fdt_add_pubkey tool

[Jan Kiszka]

On 10.11.21 07:55, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 10.11.21 01:58, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 02:17, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08.11.21 16:28, Roman Kopytin wrote:
>>>> In order to reduce the coupling between building the kernel and
>>>> U-Boot, I'd like a tool that can add a public key to U-Boot's dtb
>>>> without simultaneously signing a FIT image. That tool doesn't seem to
>>>> exist, so I stole the necessary pieces from mkimage et al and put it
>>>> in a single .c file.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still working on the details of my proposed "require just k out
>>>> these n required keys" and how it should be implemented, but it will
>>>> probably involve teaching this tool a bunch of new options. These
>>>> patches are not necessarily ready for inclusion (unless someone else
>>>> finds fdt_add_pubkey useful as is), but I thought I might as well send
>>>> it out for early comments.
>>>
>>> I'd also like to see the usage of this hooked into the build process.
>>>
>>> And to my understanding of [1], that approach will provide a feature
>>> that permits hooking with the build but would expect the key as dtsi
>>> fragment. Can we consolidate the approaches?
>>>
>>> My current vision of a user interface would be a Kconfig option that
>>> takes a list of key files to be injected. Maybe make that three lists,
>>> one for "required=image", one for "required=conf", and one for optional
>>> keys (if that has a use case in practice, no idea).
>>
>> Also please take a look at binman which is designed to handle create
>> (or later updating from Yocto) the devicetree or firmware image.
>>
> 
> Yes, binman is another problem area, but not for the public key
> injection, rather for permitting to sign fit images that are described
> for binman (rather than for mkimage). I'm currently back to dd for
> signing the U-Boot container in
> arch/arm/dts/k3-am65-iot2050-boot-image.dtsi, or I would have to split
> that FIT image description from that file - both not optimal.

OK, this can already be optimized with "binman replace" - once I
understood where fdtmap can go and where not. Why no support for using
map files?

Jan

> 
> And another area: Trust centers that perform the signing (and only that)
> usually do not support random formats and workflows but just few common
> ones, e.g. x509. It would be nice to have a way to route out the payload
> (hashes etc.) that mkimage would sign, ideally into a standard signing
> request, and permit to inject the resulting signature at the right
> places into the FIT image.
> 
> But one after the other.
> 
> Jan
> 

-- 
Siemens AG, T RDA IOT
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux