Hi Everybody,

I have applied 1-2 as Fabio suggested. I have a couple of comments for
this, too:

On 10/03/2018 02:10, Breno Matheus Lima wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
> 2018-03-09 10:07 GMT-03:00 Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonog...@linaro.org>:
>> commit 8c4037a09a5c ("imx: hab: Ensure the IVT DCD pointer is Null prior
>> to calling HAB authenticate function.") makes the DCD field being NULL a
>> dependency.
>> This change though will break loading and executing of existing pre-signed
>> binaries on a u-boot update i.e. if this change is deployed on a board you
>> will be forced to redo all images on that board to NULL out the DCD.
>> There is no prior guidance from NXP that the DCD must be NULL similarly
>> public guidance on usage of the HAB doesn't call out this NULL dependency
>> (see boundary devices link).
>> Since later SoCs will reject a non-NULL DCD there's no reason to make a
>> NULL DCD a requirement, however if there is an actual dependency for later
>> SoCs the appropriate fix would be to do SoC version checking.
>> Earlier SoCs are capable (and happy) to authenticate images with non-NULL
>> DCDs, we should not be forcing this change on downstream users -
>> particularly if it means those users now must rewrite their build systems
>> and/or redeploy signed images in the field.
>> Fixes: 8c4037a09a5c ("imx: hab: Ensure the IVT DCD pointer is Null prior
>> to calling HAB authenticate function.")
> We understand the concern being raised however would prefer to leave
> this as an error, and selected users relying on images with DCD
> pointers can modify the code accordingly. This does not just apply to
> new SoC’s but also applies to existing SoC’s.

Anyway, this is not so easy to identify. What we current know is that
older SOCs have no problem if the pointer is not set to Null. I agree
with Brian that if some constraint is coming, it should be defined with
a version checking as we currently do for a lot of things (is_soc() to
be clear).

I am quite lost because I do not know which SOCs are affected and which
not. What does it hide under "later SOCSs" ? Or better which new version
of HAB ? I know HAB was updated due to other issues - are the
corresponding SOC involved ?

If a not-null DCD pointer affects just future SOCs, we should fix it
when these SOCs will be available. This means both new SOSs (imx8x) as
new version of supported SOCs (mx5 / mx6 / mx7).

> Users performing such an
> update should definitely test the image prior to making an OTA
> available.

I think this is another topic and not what Brian is trying to address. I
hope as you that *any* update is tested before deploying. But this is

> It has never been intended for DCD to be used in any post
> boot image and we realize the lack of documentation is a hindsight by
> us, and we are currently addressing that with updated guidance.

ok, thanks for this, very appreciated.

Anyway, I am facing what we should do with this patch for 2018.03. As I
said, I am not forcing anyone and I have just picked up 1/3 and 2/3. But
IMHO, if there are not good reason to say that not raising an error
breaks a lot of supplied device, this should flow into 2018.03, too. And
then we get enough time to better explore this issue.

Best regards,

DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sba...@denx.de
U-Boot mailing list

Reply via email to