Re: [PATCH 0/2] efi: Enhance capsule loader to support signed Quark images

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka-kv7WeFo6aLtBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>]

On 2017-02-28 13:12, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb, at 10:24:41AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>> I just can re-express my frustration that this essential step hasn't
>> been started years ago by whoever designed the extension. Then I bet
>> there would have been constructive feedback on the interface BEFORE its
>> ugliness spread to broader use.
>>
>> Or is there a technical need, in general or on Quark, to have the
>> signature header right before the standard capsule *for the handover* to
>> the firmware? I mean, I would naively put it into another capsule and
>> prepend that to the core so that the existing UEFI API can palate it
>> transparently and cleanly.
> 
> I'm fairly sure this was my first thought when we discussed this
> originally, some years ago now.
> 
> The whole CSH concept is, frankly, stupid. It makes a mockery of
> everything the capsule interface was designed to be.
> 
> I have long been holding out in hope that someone would patch the
> firmware to work around this CSH requirement, something along the
> lines of the double wrapping Jan mentions above. It's not like the
> Quark is the only platform that wants to verify capsules.
> 
> But to my knowledge, that hasn't happened.
> 
> Nevertheless my answer is still the same - someone needs to go and
> update the Quark firmware source to work with the generic capsule
> mechanism.
> 

>From you POV, does this exclude upstream quirk support for already
shipped devices?

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux