I have a couple of products whose U-Boot FIT is signed via a proprietary OpenSSL engine which only expects the name of a "slot" to select the key to sign data with.
Currently mkimage fit support expects either a key-dir (-k) or a key-file (-G) as a toggle for signing, however this doesn't apply to our usecase because we use an OpenSSL engine (so no key-file to provide) which doesn't mimic a directory layout like key-dir implies. Moreover, binman really expects private keys (.key extension) to be available in this key-dir directory, which we of course cannot provide. This series allows to sign a FIT image with mkimage (and binman) with an OpenSSL engine, including PKCS11 and custom engines. If a key-dir needs to be passed (which is typical for PKCS11), one can do so by using fit,engine-keydir. Note that the public key (.crt extension) still needs to be available if one wants to embed it for signature verification (which is probably what one wants to do :) ). It is probably possible to use the engine for getting the public key instead of storing it on disk, but this needs to be added to fdt_add_pubkey and then binman, through a mechanism different from fit,engine*. One issue though is that since binman resolves key paths absolutely and that I don't believe an OpenSSL engine would happen to have the exact same key_id value than a local absolute path, fit,encrypt and fit,engine cannot cohabit. An issue for the next person who wants an OpenSSL engine AND encrypt the same FIT image, I don't. Note that LibreSSL supports neither engines nor providers as far as I could tell (engine support has been explicitly removed). Note that OpenSSL engines have been deprecated since 3.0 (Q3-2021), however note that OpenSSL 3.5 still seems to support engines (git grep) and is EOL end of Q1 2030. +Cc Eddie who's working on OpenSSL provider support, maybe we can work together on supporting both engines and providers via the same API we expose to the user? +Cc Wolfgang who seems interested in signing with PKCS11 engine which should now be supported. +Cc Peter who seems interested according to v1 If anyone has an idea on how to test PKCS11 with SOftHSMv2 with id= passed in fit,engine-keydir, I'm all ears. I'm also wondering if the explanation around fit,engine-keydir aren't too much. After all, they are passed verbatim to mkimage as -k argument and the special cases are all specific to mkimage and not binman. This depends on https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/#u Signed-off-by: Quentin Schulz <[email protected]> --- Changes in v3: - did NOT add T-b and R-B on patch 3 and 4 since there's been some rework, - added R-b on patch 2, - reworded commit log of patch 3, - reworded documentation of fit,engine and the special case of pkcs11 to hopefully be easier to digest, - put fit,engine and fit,engine-keydir extraction into a separate function, - fixed issues due to modification of the environment in tests failing other tests, by using unittest.mock.patch.dict() on os.environ as suggested by the unittest.mock doc, - added test for fit,encrypt + fit,engine raising an issue to keep 100% coverage for fit etype, - fixed issue when running binman with only one process (-T or -P 1) by renaming uniquely files and directories created in the input dir in individual tests as it is shared among all tests run by a process, - removed apt-get install of the lib packages in the test as Bintool.apt_install() is racey (apt itself is...) and would fail when running binman with multiple processes. The package is now part of the CI container (well, in a different series). If it's not detected, the test is skipped. - Link to v2: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected] Changes in v2: - added R-b on patch 1, - did NOT add T-b and R-B on patch 3 since there's been some rework, - added binman test for signing with dummy RSA engine, - added binman test for signing with SoftHSMv2 PKCS11 engine, - added binman test for signing with SoftHSMv2 PKCS11 engine and specific keydir (which contains an object= to tackle that special case) - added dummy RSA engine for binman test, - renamed property to fit,engine as my hunch is that it could be used for encrypting as well (from the same engine with the same keydir but likely a different key-name-hint so that a different keypair is used) - added fit,engine-keydir to easily support PKCS11 with arguments other than object= taken from key-name-hint, - Link to v1: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected] --- Quentin Schulz (4): fit: support signing with only an engine_id tools: binman: mkimage: add support for passing the engine tools: binman: fit: add support for OpenSSL engines tools: binman: fit: add tests for signing with an OpenSSL engine tools/binman/btool/mkimage.py | 5 +- tools/binman/btool/softhsm2_util.py | 21 ++ tools/binman/entries.rst | 54 ++++- tools/binman/etype/fit.py | 93 ++++++++- tools/binman/ftest.py | 223 +++++++++++++++++++++ tools/binman/test/340_dummy-rsa4096.crt | 31 +++ tools/binman/test/340_fit_signature_engine.dts | 99 +++++++++ .../test/340_fit_signature_engine_encrypt.dts | 100 +++++++++ .../test/340_fit_signature_engine_pkcs11.dts | 99 +++++++++ .../340_fit_signature_engine_pkcs11_object.dts | 100 +++++++++ tools/binman/test/340_openssl.conf | 10 + tools/binman/test/340_softhsm2.conf | 16 ++ tools/binman/test/Makefile | 6 +- tools/binman/test/dummy-rsa-engine.c | 149 ++++++++++++++ tools/fit_image.c | 3 +- tools/image-host.c | 4 +- 16 files changed, 1001 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) --- base-commit: a642f401d700034c82128defc2d6f9c18065de1f change-id: 20251030-binman-engine-e349b02696d0 Best regards, -- Quentin Schulz <[email protected]>
