Hi Thirupathaiah,
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 09:51, Thirupathaiah Annapureddy
<thir...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Currently Verified Boot fails if there is a signature verification failure
> using required key in U-boot DTB. This patch adds support for multiple
> required keys. This means if verified boot passes with one of the required
> keys, u-boot will continue the OS hand off.
>
> There was a prior attempt to resolve this with the following patch:
> https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2019-April/366047.html
> The above patch was failing "make tests".
>
> Signed-off-by: Thirupathaiah Annapureddy <thir...@linux.microsoft.com>
> ---
> common/image-fit-sig.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/common/image-fit-sig.c b/common/image-fit-sig.c
> index cc1967109e..4d25d4c541 100644
> --- a/common/image-fit-sig.c
> +++ b/common/image-fit-sig.c
> @@ -416,6 +416,8 @@ int fit_config_verify_required_sigs(const void *fit, int
> conf_noffset,
> {
> int noffset;
> int sig_node;
> + int verified = 0;
Can this be a bool?
> + int reqd_sigs = 0;
>
> /* Work out what we need to verify */
> sig_node = fdt_subnode_offset(sig_blob, 0, FIT_SIG_NODENAME);
> @@ -433,15 +435,23 @@ int fit_config_verify_required_sigs(const void *fit,
> int conf_noffset,
> NULL);
> if (!required || strcmp(required, "conf"))
> continue;
> +
> + reqd_sigs++;
> +
> ret = fit_config_verify_sig(fit, conf_noffset, sig_blob,
> noffset);
> if (ret) {
> printf("Failed to verify required signature '%s'\n",
> fit_get_name(sig_blob, noffset, NULL));
This message is confusing if we then decide that things are OK. I
think it would be better to change the message to a positive "Verified
required signatured xxx" if !ret
> - return ret;
> + } else {
> + verified = 1;
> + break;
> }
> }
>
> + if (reqd_sigs && !verified)
> + return -EPERM;
This needs a message, something like "No required signatures were verified"
and then list them in a for() loop.
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Regards,
Simon
