On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 07:18:15PM +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote: > On 9/15/26 17:41, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 08:45:23PM +1200, Eva Crystal wrote: > > > Thanks Ludwig - I hadn't referenced your series in my cover letter, > > > and I should have. > > > > > > v8 4/8 does close the configuration side: > > > fit_config_verify_required_keys() > > > gains FIT_REQUIRE_CONFIG_SIGS and fails closed when no keys with > > > required='conf' are present. > > > > > > The case I reported is the other gate. fit_image_verify_required_sigs() > > > looks up the /signature node in the control DTB and, when it is missing, > > > sets *no_sigsp = 1 and returns 0 with only a debug() message. Every caller > > > then treats the image as not requiring signatures, so nothing downstream > > > can fail. As far as I can see from your v8 hunks that path is unchanged. > > > > > > Two things follow: > > > > > > - I picked FIT_REQUIRE_CONFIG_SIGS for my Kconfig symbol, which collides > > > with yours. I'll rename mine to FIT_REQUIRE_IMAGE_SIGS (plus the SPL > > > variant), default off, since the two gates have different blast radius. > > > > > > - Jonas raised on 4/8 that Rockchip uses FIT_SIGNATURE for image integrity > > > only, not signed configurations. An image-side required-signature gate > > > hits that setup directly, which is the other reason to keep it a > > > separate > > > symbol that is off by default. > > > > > > I'll rebase on top of your series and resend once v8 lands, rather than > > > adding a patch to a series that already carries review tags. > > > > > > Tom, shout if you'd rather see it folded in instead. > > > > Since Ludwig is already working in this area, I'd like his thoughts on > > the issue / solution, and if it would make more sense to fold this in to > > his series or not. Thanks. > > I didn't touch the image path at all indeed. So perfect if Eva takes care of > that. My series already contains too many things and had too many > iterations. I fear that expanding the scope would delay acceptance further.
OK, thanks. Eva, go ahead and just make yours based on top of Ludwig's v9 (the changes for v10 shouldn't matter). -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
