Hi Sughosh, On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 13:08, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > hi Simon, > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 16:50, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 05:57, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > hi Simon, > > > > > > On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 17:43, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > hi Simon, > > > > > > > > On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 14:38, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 at 05:26, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 18:07, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 at 17:25, Sughosh Ganu > > > > > > > <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 at 14:44, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sughosh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 at 11:39, Sughosh Ganu > > > > > > > > > <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add a target for building EFI capsules. The capsule > > > > > > > > > > parameters are > > > > > > > > > > specified through a config file, and the path to the config > > > > > > > > > > file is > > > > > > > > > > specified through CONFIG_EFI_CAPSULE_CFG_FILE. When the > > > > > > > > > > config file is > > > > > > > > > > not specified, the command only builds tools. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.g...@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Makefile | 9 +++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > > > > > > > > > > index 10bfaa52ad..96db29aa77 100644 > > > > > > > > > > --- a/Makefile > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/Makefile > > > > > > > > > > @@ -1151,6 +1151,15 @@ dtbs: dts/dt.dtb > > > > > > > > > > dts/dt.dtb: u-boot > > > > > > > > > > $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=dts dtbs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +quiet_cmd_mkeficapsule = MKEFICAPSULE $@ > > > > > > > > > > +cmd_mkeficapsule = $(objtree)/tools/mkeficapsule $@ > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > +PHONY += capsule > > > > > > > > > > +capsule: tools > > > > > > > > > > +ifneq ($(CONFIG_EFI_CAPSULE_CFG_FILE),"") > > > > > > > > > > + $(call cmd,mkeficapsule) > > > > > > > > > > +endif > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > quiet_cmd_copy = COPY $@ > > > > > > > > > > cmd_copy = cp $< $@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > 2.34.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should be using binman to build images...you seem to be > > > > > > > > > building > > > > > > > > > something in parallel with that. Can you please take a look > > > > > > > > > at binman? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, I had explored using binman for this task. The one issue > > > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > I find the above flow better is that I can simply build my > > > > > > > > payload > > > > > > > > image(s) followed by 'make capsule' to generate the capsules for > > > > > > > > earlier generated images. In it's current form, I don't see an > > > > > > > > easy > > > > > > > > way to enforce this dependency in binman when I want to build > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > payload followed by generation of capsules. I did see the > > > > > > > > mention of > > > > > > > > encapsulating an entry within another dependent entry, but I > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > that makes the implementation more complex than it ought to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much easier to use the make flow to generate the > > > > > > > > images > > > > > > > > followed by capsules, instead of tweaking the binman node to > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > generate the payload images, followed by enabling the capsule > > > > > > > > node to > > > > > > > > build the capsules. If there is an easy way of enforcing this > > > > > > > > dependency, please let me know. Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you share your explorations? I think the capsule should be > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > as part of the build, if enabled. Rather than changing the input > > > > > > > files, binman should produce new output files. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an issue of handling dependencies in binman, and not > > > > > > changing > > > > > > input files. We do not have support for telling binman > > > > > > "build/generate > > > > > > this particular image first before you proceed to build the capsules > > > > > > using the earlier built images". I am not sure if this can be done > > > > > > in > > > > > > a generic manner in binman, so that irrespective of the image being > > > > > > generated, it can be specified to build capsules once the capsule > > > > > > input images have been generated. > > > > > > > > > > I'm just not sure what you are getting out here. > > > > > > > > > > See INPUTS-y for the input files to binman. Then binman uses these to > > > > > generate output files. It does not mess with the input files, nor > > > > > should it. Please read the top part of the Binman motivation to > > > > > understand how all this works. > > > > > > > > > > At the risk of repeating myself, we want the Makefile to focus on > > > > > building U-Boot, with Binman handling the laterprocessing of those > > > > > files. Binman may run as part of the U-Boot build, and/or can be run > > > > > later, with the input files. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are trying to remove most of the output logic in Makefile. It > > > > > > > should just be producing input files for binman. > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand. However, like I mentioned above, as of now, we don't > > > > > > have a way of handling dependencies in binman, at least in a generic > > > > > > manner. Once this support gets added, I know that it would be > > > > > > trivial > > > > > > to add support for building capsules in binman. > > > > > > > > > > What dependencies do you need? Please describe it in a simple manner > > > > > so I can understand. It cannot involve change the binman input files. > > > > > > > > Consider the following scenarios. > > > > > > > > One board, say Board A uses fip.bin as the input file(payload) for > > > > generating the capsule file. The fip.bin is being generated through > > > > binman. A binman entry is also added for generating the capsule(say > > > > fip.capule). Now, binman has to generate fip.bin *and subsequently* > > > > fip.capsule, as the capsule file will contain fip.bin as it's > > > > payload(input). > > > > > > > > Second Board B, uses u-boot.itb, which is a FIT image, as the input > > > > file for generating the capsule. The u-boot.itb is being generated > > > > through binman, and so is the capsule. But binman needs to build the > > > > u-boot.itb *before* it generates the corresponding capsule file, which > > > > uses u-boot.itb as the capsule payload. > > > > > > > > There can be multiple such examples of input files being generated by > > > > binman, followed by the capsule getting generated by binman. How do I > > > > specify this dependency in binman -- build/generate the input file > > > > first, and then use that files in generating the capsule. > > > > At present you can do this by ordering the images correctly, i.e. put > > the first image first and the dependent image after it. For the > > dependent image you can have a blob which is the entire first image. > > If putting the image entries in a certain order under the binman node > *guarantees* the generation of the first image prior to the generation > of the second image, I think that should work for my use case. > However, when I look at the binman.rst document, I see this mentioned > under the 'Image dependencies' section. > > <quote> > Binman does not currently support images that depend on each other. For > example, > if one image creates `fred.bin` and then the next uses this `fred.bin` to > produce a final `image.bin`, then the behaviour is undefined. It may work, or > it > may produce an error about `fred.bin` being missing, or it may use a version > of > `fred.bin` from a previous run. > </quote> > > I believe the above is precisely what my use case is. One image > generating fip.bin(for e.g.), and the next image using this fip.bin to > produce the final fip.capsule. Or is this a case of the document not > reflecting the actual code?
So long as the images are in the correct order in the resulting .dtb, then it will work. Quite a few boards rely on this. This comment is there because I planned to implement concurrent image generation (as is done for sections). But for now this is not implemented. Also I plan to implement templates before parallel images, so we can handle dependencies in a more general way. So if that is the only blocker, I am sorry for the docs being too conservative. I will send a patch. > > > > > If you are trying to do a second binman operation later, then perhaps > > something like 'binman sign' would be useful. Then people can provide > > their own key and sign the images in a separate binman operation. This > > is likely needed anyway for things to work on a signing server. > > > > > > > > Can you confirm if the above dependencies can be handled in binman > > > currently. If not, I'd suggest you remove your Nak for patch 6 of this > > > series [1]. Like I mentioned earlier, if there is a means of > > > specifying dependencies for generating images in binman, moving the > > > capsule generation to binman will not be a difficult task. > > > > > > Also, can you go through the other set of patches in V2, specifically > > > the ones where putting the public key ESL into the dtb is being done > > > through binman. > > > > The order of operation is supposed to be: > > > > 1. Various projects used to build their ouputs (e.g. TF-A) > > 2. Makefile used to build U-Boot: > > 2a. The build produces a set of files which serve as inputs to binman > > (INPUTS-y) > > 2b. Binman runs on INPUTS-y, picking up all the bits and creating the > > final firmware image(s) > > 3. If necessary, separate from the U-Boot build, binman can be used > > separately to do signing or whatever is needed on the final image(s) > > > > I understand that the public key is available in a CONFIG, so it > > should be possible to embed it in the build as input, either as a > > .dtsi build using 2a, or as a binary file pulled in by binman in 2b. > > Using a dtsi would mean that every platform which wants to enable > capsule authentication would need to add a signature node to it's > dtsi. Instead, is it not simpler to just generate a dtbo and merge it > with the dtb being generated. That is what was being done in V1 [1]. Why is it simpler? The .dtsi is where we are supposed to put devicetree properties. It seems a lot harder (to me) to add it later. It could be a #include, or even just put it in the .dtsi if it is the same for all boards? > For your suggestion to pull it in as a binary file in binman, that > still does not fix the issue of not changing INPUTS-y. > > If you ask me, the embedding of the public-key into the dtb is not a > task suitable for binman. Why? Because this task is actually changing > one of the INPUTS-y file that feeds into binman. And yes, we can > generate a different set of files, like u-boot-capsule.dtb and > u-boot-capsule.bin -- implementing that is not at all difficult. But > like I had highlighted earlier, and also explained by Ilias, we > already have platforms that use capsule updates and which use > u-boot.dtb and u-boot.bin. Also, platforms would not want a separate Those platforms should change, IMO. But how can this be, when this functionality has not yet been added to U-Boot? > set of files, one for normal boot, one when using capsules. So I think > it is imperative that we generate the same set of files irrespective > of whether a platform enables capsule updates. So a proper design > would be to add/embed the public key into the dtb as the dtb is > getting built. Again, this is what was being done in V1. I completely disagree with this. A capsule update is not the same as the vanilla board build / binary. Please can you just give up on this idea? Many platforms generate their output in separate files, e.g. see u-boot-rockchip.bin - it just does not make sense to change the built binary after it is built. > > > > > > The patches I reviewed are modifying the input files (INPUTS-y) which > > is not allowed. Nor does it seem to be necessary. > > The necessity was explained by me and Ilias earlier, and above. OK, but it still is not correct. Regards, Simon > > -sughosh > > [1] - https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2023-June/520121.html > > > > > > > > As to having 'real' dependencies between images in Binman, I believe > > that should be possible. At the moment images are entirely > > independent, but I am looking at implementing a simple 'template' > > scheme, where you can include some or all of an image description in > > another image. See [1] common-part in case you have thoughts on that. > > > > Regards, > > Simon > > > > [1] > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/9e905abd369f1d8b182e6fc6e3c9ef4b1526bf76.1685975993.git.jan.kis...@siemens.com/
