Re: [PATCH] mkimage: do a rough estimate for the size needed for hashes/signatures

[Rasmus Villemoes <ravi@prevas.dk>]

On Wed, Jun 04 2025, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 02:54:30PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>
>> 
>> While not perfect, we can give a reasonable estimate of an upper bound
>> on the necessary extra size by simply counting the number of hash and
>> signature nodes in the FIT image.
>> 
>> As indicated in the comments, one could probably make it even more
>> precise, and if there would ever be signatures larger than 512 bytes,
>> probably one would have to do that. But this works well enough in
>> practice for now, and is in fact an improvement in the normal case:
>> Currently, starting with size_inc of 0 is guaranteed to fail, so we
>> always enter the loop at least twice, even when not doing any signing
>> but merely filling hash values.
>> 
>> Just in case I've missed anything, keep the loop incrementing 1024
>> bytes at a time, and also, in case the estimate turns out to be over
>> 64K, ensure that we do at least one attempt by changing to a do-while
>> loop.
>> 
>> ---
>>  tools/fit_image.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> I think some tests need to be updated now:
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/jobs/1156824

Hm, yes.

I don't like blindly just updating such numbers so they match, but in
this case I think I can at least explain the delta: The fit image
described in 161_fit.dts has four hash nodes, so with my estimate we
first try with an increment of 4*128=512, while previously we'd first
try 0 and then 1024. Since 512 is enough, the fit image ends up 512
bytes smaller, and that is exactly the delta seen in fit:size and the
other numbers affected by that.

Should I fold in those changes and resend, or is a separate followup
patch better/ok?

Rasmus