Re: [PATCH v4 18/20] gpu: nova-core: add types for patching firmware binaries

["Alexandre Courbot" <acourbot@nvidia.com>]

On Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 7:54 PM JST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On 6/12/25 9:19 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Wed Jun 4, 2025 at 7:28 PM JST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>> If we can't patch them when the object is created, i.e. in
>>> FirmwareDmaObject::new(), I think we should take self by value in
>>> FirmwareDmaObject::patch_signature() and return a SignedFirmwareDmaObject (which
>>> can just be a transparent wrapper) instead in order to let the type system prove
>>> that we did not forget to call patch_signature().
>> 
>> This one is a bit tricky. Signature patching is actually optional,
>> depending on whether there are signatures present at all (it might not
>> be the case on development setups). So involving the type system here
>> would require storing the result in an enum, and then match that enum
>> later in order to do the same thing in both cases - load the binary
>> as-is.
>> 
>> So I guess I would rather leave this one as it currently is, unless
>> there is a better way I haven't thought about?
>
> In the end the idea is to ensure that we can't forget to call patch_signature(), 
> so even if it's optional we could do what I mentioned above, just that 
> patch_signature() might be a noop?

Sure, I can add a method to transition to the signed state without doing
anything. At least it will make sure the caller knows what they are
doing.