Hi Andrew, On 8 February 2017 at 08:18, Andrew F. Davis <a...@ti.com> wrote: > On 12/06/2016 09:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> On 5 December 2016 at 17:37, Andrew F. Davis <a...@ti.com> wrote: >>> On 11/14/2016 06:33 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> Hi Andrew, >>>> >>>> On 14 November 2016 at 15:05, Andrew F. Davis <a...@ti.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/14/2016 02:44 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>> Hi Andrew, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 14 November 2016 at 12:14, Andrew F. Davis <a...@ti.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Introduce CONFIG_SPL_ABORT_ON_NON_FIT_IMAGE. An SPL which define >>>>>>> this will abort image loading if the image is not a FIT image. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <a...@ti.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ >>>>>>> common/spl/spl.c | 5 +++++ >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/Kconfig b/Kconfig >>>>>>> index 1263d0b..eefebef 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/Kconfig >>>>>>> +++ b/Kconfig >>>>>>> @@ -291,6 +291,15 @@ config FIT_IMAGE_POST_PROCESS >>>>>>> injected into the FIT creation (i.e. the blobs would have >>>>>>> been pre- >>>>>>> processed before being added to the FIT image). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +config SPL_ABORT_ON_NON_FIT_IMAGE >>>>>> >>>>>> We already have CONFIG_IMAGE_FORMAT_LEGACY so how about >>>>>> CONFIG_SPL_IMAGE_FORMAT_LEGACY instead? It can default to y if secure >>>>>> boot is disabled. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We also already have CONFIG_SPL_ABORT_ON_RAW_IMAGE on which this is >>>>> based. If we only disable legacy image support then RAW images should >>>>> still be allowed, but we will fail early anyway, we will start to need >>>>> an unmaintainable amount of pre-processor logic to to handle the >>>>> different image types and what is allowed/not allowed. >>>>> >>>>> Even worse some boot modes don't seem to support FIT images (net, >>>>> onenand) so these will alway expect legacy to work. Right now we simply >>>>> have to disable these modes. >>>> >>>> IMO CONFIG_SPL_ABORT_ON_RAW_IMAGE should become a positive option, to >>>> fit in with the legacy format. Otherwise we'll get very confused I >>>> think. >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure what you are suggesting here, would you like >>> >>> CONFIG_SPL_SUPPORT_RAW_IMAGE >>> CONFIG_SPL_SUPPORT_LEGACY_IMAGE >>> CONFIG_SPL_SUPPORT_FIT_IMAGE >>> >>> And then we disable as needed? I'm not sure this will work in our case, >>> as a new image type may be introduced and enabled by default, this will >>> break our board security until we discover this and disabled it. The >>> benefit of a negative option for us is that we can specify we *only* >>> allow FIT, then it will be obvious to someone adding a new image type >>> they will not meet this check and should not put code outside this block. >> >> I don't think we add new image types often, and they should default to >> n just as we do for U-Boot proper. Although something odd has happened >> with DISABLE_IMAGE_LEGACY. >> >> his should of thing should be caught in a security review. >> >> Also you could add something to print a warning if secure boot is >> enabled but insecure boot options are available? Perhaps that should >> be another option, and default to y? >> >> It's just that it is really hard to deal with multiple negative >> options, so best avoided if we can. >> > > I agree in general, but this time I think this is hard to properly > avoid. All that would be different with a positivoption only case > would be a bunch of checks that all other image modes are off, then > block undefining the same code I am here.
But why is SPL different from U-Boot proper on this point? It seems like we could use the same scheme in SPL as we do in U-Boot proper? Positive options are easier to understand and combine. If we end up adding another image format it wouldn't be hard to default it to n if we are using secure boot. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
