Hi Marek
On 21-Aug-25 5:33 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 8/21/25 12:26 PM, Ravulapalli, Naresh Kumar wrote:
[...]
How big is the file ? crc32 is weak . Why not use e.g. fitImage for
this ?
If this raw loading should be available to users, it should come with a
BIG WARNING about data integrity.
User can use CRC32 and if they require SHA256/512, they can use that as
well or any other algorithm as desired.
RAW partition support is helpful for flash constraint devices especially
in a use case where we need to store data as RAW during run-time and if
data integrity is required, user has the flexibility to choose
respective algorithms like CRC/SHA etc. The whole objective of this
patch is to provide that flexibility to the user.
I don't think we need the BIG WARNING, as RAW data by definition will
not have any built-in integrity features and users should exercise
caution if data integrity is required. It is mentioned in the enum
definition that choosing "DATA_RAW" flag will store data as RAW.
It is not a good idea to use RAW data in the first place, because it
gives the user false sense of safety, but in reality it can lead to
silent data corruption. Hence, please add big warning.
Also, how big are your payloads ? You did not answer that question .
Is adding "log_warning()" be sufficient, like "log_warning("%s: Chosen
RAW data type DOESN'T have built-in data integrity support\n", __func__);" ?
Our typical payloads are of 3 KB size.
