From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=stewart@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40lpN93QFFzF27x for ; Wed, 16 May 2018 06:00:56 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w4FJx8Rq095955 for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 16:00:52 -0400 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com (e36.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.154]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2j04wa3hk9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 15 May 2018 16:00:51 -0400 Received: from localhost by e36.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 15 May 2018 14:00:50 -0600 Received: from b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.130.19) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.136) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 15 May 2018 14:00:48 -0600 Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.233]) by b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id w4FK0itO12517808; Tue, 15 May 2018 13:00:47 -0700 Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAB313603C; Tue, 15 May 2018 14:00:47 -0600 (MDT) Received: from birb.localdomain (unknown [9.41.172.201]) by b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78038136043; Tue, 15 May 2018 14:00:47 -0600 (MDT) Received: by birb.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B0DF84EC649; Tue, 15 May 2018 15:00:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Stewart Smith To: Lei YU , Adriana Kobylak Cc: OpenBMC Maillist Subject: Re: BMC Image Signing Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <70e1d00f2f9abaea58ff3710d4fbcbff@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <7857d6b0-5c9b-63c1-4216-a737513a3f5a@yadro.com> <1517207425.21006.27.camel@aj.id.au> <87shaoymux.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87lggezywe.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <3d38bc878a5b36f9091588d1fb842c1e@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <8172868d02b4f54ceaa101ba1c99fa5b@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <874lm8pjd7.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 15:00:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18051520-0020-0000-0000-00000DF04E44 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00009030; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000260; SDB=6.01032792; UDB=6.00528030; IPR=6.00811924; MB=3.00021131; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-05-15 20:00:49 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18051520-0021-0000-0000-00006163CDE5 Message-Id: <871seczo2a.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-15_07:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1805150196 X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 20:00:58 -0000 Lei YU writes: > I'd like to bring this topic again. > > As I know image signing feature is completed for both BMC and PNOR: > https://github.com/openbmc/phosphor-bmc-code-mgmt > https://github.com/openbmc/openpower-pnor-code-mgmt > > However, the above repos are only for systems with UBI-FS feature. > Most of machines are still using the "legacy" obmc flash layout, and thus > they do not have image singing feature. > > So I would like to ask for ideas about how to support image signing feature > for machines with "legacy" flash layout? > 1. Should we use UBI-FS for machines that requires image signing feature? > 2. Or should we implement image signing feature on "legacy" flash layout as > well? Either option is valid. I think we should get it gonig for non-UBI-FS systems though, and we should do that through the host -- Stewart Smith OPAL Architect, IBM.