Hi Takahiro, On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 22:56, AKASHI Takahiro <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:17:45PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Takahiro, > > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 00:25, AKASHI Takahiro > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > With this enhancement, mkeficapsule will be able to sign a capsule > > > file when it is created. A signature added will be used later > > > in the verification at FMP's SetImage() call. > > > > > > To do that, We need specify additional command parameters: > > > -monotonic-cout <count> : monotonic count > > > -private-key <private key file> : private key file > > > -certificate <certificate file> : certificate file > > > Only when all of those parameters are given, a signature will be added > > > to a capsule file. > > > > > > Users are expected to maintain and increment the monotonic count at > > > every time of the update for each firmware image. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > tools/Kconfig | 8 + > > > tools/Makefile | 8 +- > > > tools/mkeficapsule.c | 435 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > 3 files changed, 417 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > Thank you for your reviewing. > > > This looks OK but I have some suggestions > > > > - I don't think you should return -1 from main > > exit(EXIT_FAILURE)? > Yeah, but when I first wrote this tool (without authentication support), > 'return -1' was used everywhere. So I didn't want to have mixed styles > in this patch. > I will make a change with the tweak below.
OK. I just mean that I think the return code is supposed to be 1 or 2 or maybe 3 on error, not 255. > > > - could you split up your create_fwbin() to return the number of gotos? > > Yeah, lots of gotos are messy. > > > - could we have a man page for the tool? > > Patch#3 OK > > > - should the files be opened in binary mode? > > Well, the man page of fopen() says, > This is strictly for compatibility with C89 and has no effect; > the 'b' is ignored on all POSIX conforming sys- tems, including Linux. > > U-Boot now requires C11, and so no need? Ah OK. I suppose no one builds this on Windows. > > > - can we just build the tool always? > > This is one of my questions. > Why do you want to do so while there are bunch of tools that are > not always built. Because I think all tools should be built always. It is fine if that happens due to CONFIG options but we should try to avoid making it complicated. > > # I saw some discussion in another topic thread, and some distro guy said > # that they used sandbox_defconfig for tool packaging. What about tools-only ? So long as the options are enabled it is fine to have options for the tools. But I think we should try to build all the tools. Regards, Simon
