Re: [PATCH v5 02/11] tools: mkeficapsule: add firmwware image signing

[AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>]

On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 08:56:50AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Takahiro,
> 
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 22:56, AKASHI Takahiro
> <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:17:45PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Takahiro,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 00:25, AKASHI Takahiro
> > > <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > With this enhancement, mkeficapsule will be able to sign a capsule
> > > > file when it is created. A signature added will be used later
> > > > in the verification at FMP's SetImage() call.
> > > >
> > > > To do that, We need specify additional command parameters:
> > > >   -monotonic-cout <count> : monotonic count
> > > >   -private-key <private key file> : private key file
> > > >   -certificate <certificate file> : certificate file
> > > > Only when all of those parameters are given, a signature will be added
> > > > to a capsule file.
> > > >
> > > > Users are expected to maintain and increment the monotonic count at
> > > > every time of the update for each firmware image.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  tools/Kconfig        |   8 +
> > > >  tools/Makefile       |   8 +-
> > > >  tools/mkeficapsule.c | 435 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > >  3 files changed, 417 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> >
> > Thank you for your reviewing.
> >
> > > This looks OK but I have some suggestions
> > >
> > > - I don't think you should return -1 from main
> >
> > exit(EXIT_FAILURE)?
> > Yeah, but when I first wrote this tool (without authentication support),
> > 'return -1' was used everywhere. So I didn't want to have mixed styles
> > in this patch.
> > I will make a change with the tweak below.
> 
> OK. I just mean that I think the return code is supposed to be 1 or 2
> or maybe 3 on error, not 255.
> 
> >
> > > - could you split up your create_fwbin() to return the number of gotos?
> >
> > Yeah, lots of gotos are messy.
> >
> > > - could we have a man page for the tool?
> >
> > Patch#3
> 
> OK
> 
> >
> > > - should the files be opened in binary mode?
> >
> > Well, the man page of fopen() says,
> >    This is strictly for compatibility with C89 and has no effect;
> >    the 'b' is ignored on all POSIX conforming  sys- tems,  including Linux.
> >
> > U-Boot now requires C11, and so no need?
> 
> Ah OK. I suppose no one builds this on Windows.
> 
> >
> > > - can we just build the tool always?
> >
> > This is one of my questions.
> > Why do you want to do so while there are bunch of tools that are
> > not always built.
> 
> Because I think all tools should be built always. It is fine if that
> happens due to CONFIG options but we should try to avoid making it
> complicated.
> 
> >
> > # I saw some discussion in another topic thread, and some distro guy said
> > # that they used sandbox_defconfig for tool packaging.
> 
> What about tools-only ?
> 
> So long as the options are enabled it is fine to have options for the
> tools. But I think we should try to build all the tools.

I forgot to add CMD_MKEFITOOL in tools-only_defconfig in v6.
If I need to send v7, I will include it, otherwise send it in a separate patch.

-Takahiro Akashi


> Regards,
> Simon