On 3/22/21 9:27 AM, Philippe REYNES wrote:
Hi all,
Le 11/03/2021 à 00:10, Alex G a écrit :
[snip]
I reach the same issue, my customers are also worried with the actual
signature check scheme on u-boot.
The fit data/node are parsed before being checked : data should be used
only after being checked, not before.
The code become quite complex for a signature, and the more complex the
code is more risk to have/introduce a bug or security issue.
[snip]
The reason I used a weak function was to mirror the already
upstreamed board_spl_fit_post_load(),
I see why you'd think it was a good idea. board_spl_fit_pre_load()
sneaks in a dependency on arch-specific code (CONFIG_IMX_HAB). I don't
really like the way it's implemented, and I don't know if it would
work with SPL_LOAD_FIT_FULL or bootm.
As I reach the same issue, I was also thinking strongly about adding a
"hook" before the fit image is launched/analyzed. In my mind this "pre
load" function should be able to do some check/update to the fit image,
but also modify the beginning of the fit image (to remove a header for
example). Such function/feature may allow to:
- check a signature for the full fit (without parsing the node)
- cipher the full fit (even the node)
- compress the full fit
- probably that users will find a lot of others ideas .....
I think that this feature pre load should be implemented in spl and
bootm command.
I have understood the feedback about a useful implementation/usage of
pre_load.
I propose to sent an example soon (probably based on signature check).
So "what" you want to do is verify untrusted metadata before using it.
That's a very logical and reasonable thing to do.
"How" you are trying to do this is by
(1) adding a weak function
(2) allowing each board to have a completely different implementation
Those are two terrible ideas.
I agree that there is a deficiency in the way FIT images are signed. Can
we stick the signature between the fdt_header and before dt_struct?
Alex
