From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [tegrarcm PATCH V2 3/4] Add option --download-signed-msgs to download signed blobs Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:16:48 -0600 Message-ID: <56E71C30.7030503@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1457744552-30966-1-git-send-email-jimmzhang@nvidia.com> <1457744552-30966-4-git-send-email-jimmzhang@nvidia.com> <56E70E4F.80307@wwwdotorg.org> <41214cca62234ce1b7f238fa8fcb71aa@HQMAIL103.nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <41214cca62234ce1b7f238fa8fcb71aa-wO81nVYWzR7YuxH7O460wFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jimmy Zhang Cc: Allen Martin , Stephen Warren , "alban.bedel-RM9K5IK7kjKj5M59NBduVrNAH6kLmebB@public.gmane.org" , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 03/14/2016 02:01 PM, Jimmy Zhang wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stephen Warren [mailto:swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org] >> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 12:18 PM >> To: Jimmy Zhang >> Cc: Allen Martin; Stephen Warren; alban.bedel-RM9K5IK7kjKj5M59NBduVrNAH6kLmebB@public.gmane.org; linux- >> tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >> Subject: Re: [tegrarcm PATCH V2 3/4] Add option --download-signed-msgs to >> download signed blobs >> >> On 03/11/2016 06:02 PM, Jimmy Zhang wrote: >>> This feature allows user to download signed messages to devices >>> secured with PKC. >>> >>> Example: >>> tegrarcm --download-signed-msgs --signed-msgs-file rel_1001.bin \ >>> --bct=jetson-tk1-bct.bct --bootloader=u-boot.bin >>> --loadaddr=0x83d88000 >>> >>> Where the following blob files are downloaded to device sequentially: >>> >>> a) rel_1001.bin.qry >>> b) rel_1001.bin.ml >>> c) rel_1001.bin.bl >> >>> @@ -1083,14 +1198,24 @@ static int download_bootloader(nv3p_handle_t >> h3p, char *filename, >>> } >>> >>> ret = nv3p_data_send(h3p, rsa_pss_sig, >> sizeof(rsa_pss_sig)); >>> - if (ret) { >>> - dprintf("error sending bootloader >> signature\n"); >>> + } >> >> Doesn't this change (moving that error dprintf later) mean that any error >> there potentially won't be reported, since the code below can overwrite >> "ret" before the moved copy of that check? I'm not convinced the code >> should be moved. >> > > No. This is because only one can be true between pkc_keyfile and signed_msgs_file. Ie, either when signing on fly or signed without keyfile option. This logic is ensured in main when checking command line options. Ah, I guess that makes sense. Reading the diff is a bit more confusing than the resultant code. So, this patch, Acked-by: Stephen Warren