Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Anti rollback protection for FIT Images

2020-09-15 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On 15/09/2020 07.22, Thirupathaiah Annapureddy wrote: > Hi Rasmus, > >> >>> This RFC introduces a proposal to add anti-rollback protection for >>> FIT images. This protection feature prevents U-Boot from accepting >>> an image if it has ever successfully loaded an image with a larger >>>

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Anti rollback protection for FIT Images

2020-09-15 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On 15/09/2020 08.20, Thirupathaiah Annapureddy wrote: > > On 9/7/2020 11:15 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> On 02/09/2020 09.58, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >>> On 01/09/2020 22.48, Thirupathaiah Annapureddy wrote: Anti rollback protection is required when there is a need to retire previous

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Anti rollback protection for FIT Images

2020-09-15 Thread Thirupathaiah Annapureddy
On 9/7/2020 11:15 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On 02/09/2020 09.58, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> On 01/09/2020 22.48, Thirupathaiah Annapureddy wrote: >>> Anti rollback protection is required when there is a need to retire >>> previous versions of FIT images due to security flaws in them. >>>

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Anti rollback protection for FIT Images

2020-09-14 Thread Thirupathaiah Annapureddy
Hi Rasmus, Thanks for the review. Please see in-line: On 9/2/2020 12:58 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On 01/09/2020 22.48, Thirupathaiah Annapureddy wrote: >> Anti rollback protection is required when there is a need to retire >> previous versions of FIT images due to security flaws in them. >>

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Anti rollback protection for FIT Images

2020-09-08 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On 02/09/2020 09.58, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On 01/09/2020 22.48, Thirupathaiah Annapureddy wrote: >> Anti rollback protection is required when there is a need to retire >> previous versions of FIT images due to security flaws in them. >> Currently U-Boot Verified boot does not have rollback

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Anti rollback protection for FIT Images

2020-09-02 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On 01/09/2020 22.48, Thirupathaiah Annapureddy wrote: > Anti rollback protection is required when there is a need to retire > previous versions of FIT images due to security flaws in them. > Currently U-Boot Verified boot does not have rollback protection to > protect against known security flaws.

[RFC PATCH 0/1] Anti rollback protection for FIT Images

2020-09-01 Thread Thirupathaiah Annapureddy
Anti rollback protection is required when there is a need to retire previous versions of FIT images due to security flaws in them. Currently U-Boot Verified boot does not have rollback protection to protect against known security flaws. This RFC introduces a proposal to add anti-rollback