From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bryan O'Donoghue Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] efi: Enhance capsule loader to support signed Quark images Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:51:47 +0000 Message-ID: <89831548-506f-9199-57ae-400ce020081a@nexus-software.ie> References: <1bf3c9d8-56aa-818b-350f-deb62ad14e08@siemens.com> <4014c5e6-b5a0-7552-166f-a42992532c09@siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Kweh, Hock Leong" , Jan Kiszka , Andy Shevchenko Cc: Matt Fleming , Ard Biesheuvel , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Borislav Petkov , "Ong, Boon Leong" , "Mok, Tze Siong" List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 17/02/17 08:23, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote: > And to have UEFI expand > it capsule support and take in signed binary would be a more secured way. > So, influencing UEFI community to have such support would be the right > move throughout the discussion. That is my summary. CSH stands for "Clanton Secure Header" - Clanton being the internal code-name for Quark X1000 prior to release. There is no chance the UEFI standard (which can be used on ARM and potentially other architectures) will accept a SoC specific route-of-trust prepended header. Sure some kind of binary signed headers might become part of the standard eventually but, definitely _not_ a CSH. The fact is CSH exists in the real-world and a UEFI firmware supports accepting the CSH/UEFI-capsule pair for updating itself. I think a far more practical solution is to accommodate the defacto implementation (the only ? current implementation). To me it defies reason to have Quark X1000 be the only system (that I know of) capable of doing a capsule update - have capsule code in the kernel - but _not_ support the header prepended to that capsule that the Quark firmware/bootrom require. Right now the capsule code is dead code on Quark x1000. Let's do the right thing and make it usable. I fully support having a separate/parallel conversation with the UEFI body but, I'd be amazed if the "Clanton Secure Header" made it into the standard... -- bod