Re: [PATCH] image: Control FIT signature verification at runtime

["Alex G." <mr.nuke.me@gmail.com>]

On 2/27/22 19:29, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022, at 13:55, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022, at 13:42, Dhananjay Phadke wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2022 3:13 PM, Patrick Williams wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:14:53AM -0800, Dhananjay Phadke wrote:
>>>>> There's a key-requirement policy already implemented [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/cover.1597643014.git.thiruan@linux.microsoft.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> Board code can patch "required-policy" = none at runtime based
>>>>> appropriate logic.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this jumper proposal just like the TCG Physical Presence requirements?
>>>> This is a software implementation and requires a particular hardware design for
>>>> it to be done right, but it seems to be along the same lines.
>>>
>>> I'm supporting idea of having control on FIT verification, just pointed
>>> that it maybe done by board code by just patching U-Boot control FDT,
>>> either the "required-policy" property at /signature or "required"
>>> property in individual key nodes.
>>
>> This might separate the logic out in a way that's acceptable to Alex.
>>
>> Let me poke at it.
> 
> I've thought about this some more and adding support for
> `required-mode = "none";` or similar seems like a massive footgun given
> that (as I understand it) the FIT image as a whole isn't verified. Only
> supporting "all" or "any" seems okay because some verification must
> succeed in the context of the keys available in the current stage.
> 
> After some internal discussion this effort has been set aside so I'm not
> going to pursue it further for the moment. I don't think it's easy to
> proceed anyway without feedback from Alex.

Don't let my thoughts stop you. I don't think there is a perfect way to 
address this situation, and we don't have to. Code can be changed later.

As a general preference, I would like to see a single decision point on 
whether to verify/skip. It can be changing `required-mode = "none", or 
any other similar solution. Keep in mind that the FIT is the image 
you're trying to authenticate. It is completely different from 
"required-mode", which is part of u-boot's or SPL's embedded dtb.

Alex