WIP: Signing TI x509 certificates using binman

[Neha Malcom Francis]

Hi Simon

On 31/03/23 02:01, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Neha,
> 
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 22:28, Neha Malcom Francis <n-francis at ti.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> Before I roll out the entire series that works for packaging K3
>> bootloader images, wanted to get some reviews and comments regarding the
>> implementation of the signing etype [1] . I believe I've taken into
>> consideration what we've discussed earlier [2].
>>
>> Let me know your thoughts. The tree is also WIP, and was mainly designed
>> for testing the signing etype on two of the devices. I will add the
>> remaining and refine the series based on the next comments.
> 
> Yes this looks reasonable to me. For the openssl method, can you
> create a new 'real' method and put the cert stuff in there instead of
> using a 'custom' one? It seems to have a lot in common with what is
> there. We should really have an internal cert-generator method in that
> class, with other functions in that class doing appropriate things. I
> am looking for code reuse here, as well as clear indication of what
> the cert is for or does.

So you're suggesting to include the config creation within the openssl 
btool, am I right? For example methods to generate a config, add section 
to a config, add extension to a section of a config... etc? I can take a 
look at implementing this if this is what you have suggested.

If most of the cert is the same, you could
> pass a dict for the CN stuff, perhaps?
> 
> What is the taml for? It is hard to tell, from the example provided.
Did you mean YAML? If so in the patch I linked, I don't think I had a 
example for that. Could you point out what exactly you're asking about?

> 
> Do you have a .dts which shows the full image for a board? I think the
> cert stuff looks right, but it's a bit hard to tell.

Yes, in the same github link I have the whole tree [3] that contains 
DTBs for couple of the devices [4] and [5], please have a look and let 
me know (I might force push a few changes in the next couple of days, so 
better to look from the tree)

> 
> When sending the patches please do do follow the function-commenting
> style and make sure that it is clear what each arg means. E.g. I saw a
> hash integer which I assume is used to pass 256 or 384 or 512 for sha
> hashing. It should indicate the possible values / meaning in the arg.
> In fact, in that case, it might be better to pass a string like
> 'sha256'.

Yes, you're right. Will address that when sending the patch series 
completely.

> 
> Anyway, apart from my questions it seems good.
> 
> Regards,
> Simon
> 
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/nehamalcom/u-boot/commit/ea7413ed5864340bd6f01e704e8bdcc073a7896b#diff-efb03d61a324724c4f86bf42b45c4e4e614cab18e1b3184f63721d62280a11b5
>>
>> [2]
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20230224120340.587786-1-n-francis@ti.com/
>>
>> --
>> Thanking You
>> Neha Malcom Francis

[3] https://github.com/nehamalcom/u-boot/commits/ti-secure-functionality
[4] 
https://github.com/nehamalcom/u-boot/commit/dda1f9caf436df59c576466f35262df90aa1c0af


-- 
Thanking You
Neha Malcom Francis