[PATCH] FIT: make RSA signature verification configurable

[Yegor Yefremov]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On 01/08/2016 02:24 PM, yegorslists at googlemail.com wrote:
>> From: Yegor Yefremov <yegorslists at googlemail.com>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yegor Yefremov <yegorslists at googlemail.com>
>> ---
>>  commands/Kconfig   | 10 ++++++++++
>>  common/image-fit.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
>>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/commands/Kconfig b/commands/Kconfig
>> index 3e4a32a..2fe37b9 100644
>> --- a/commands/Kconfig
>> +++ b/commands/Kconfig
>> @@ -428,6 +428,16 @@ config CMD_BOOTM_FITIMAGE
>>         tree in the "doc/uImage.FIT" folder for more information:
>>         http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=tree;f=doc/uImage.FIT
>>
>> +config CMD_BOOTM_FITIMAGE_SIGNATURE
>> +     bool
>> +     prompt "Enable signature verification of FIT images"
>
> Make signature verification mandatory.

OK

>> +     depends on CMD_BOOTM_FITIMAGE
>> +     help
>> +       This option enables signature verification of FIT uImages,
>> +       using a hash signed and verified using RSA. If
>> +       CONFIG_SHA_PROG_HW_ACCEL is defined, i.e support for progressive
>> +       hashing is available using hardware, RSA library will use it.
>> +
>>  config CMD_BOOTU
>>       tristate
>>       default y
>> diff --git a/common/image-fit.c b/common/image-fit.c
>> index 296285b..96cc3e2 100644
>> --- a/common/image-fit.c
>> +++ b/common/image-fit.c
>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
>>  #define CHECK_LEVEL_SIG 2
>>  #define CHECK_LEVEL_MAX 3
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CMD_BOOTM_FITIMAGE_SIGNATURE
>>  static uint32_t dt_struct_advance(struct fdt_header *f, uint32_t dt, int size)
>
> remove the ifdef.

What about compile warnings, i.e. function defined, but not used?

>>  {
>>       dt += size;
>> @@ -342,6 +343,7 @@ static int fit_verify_signature(struct device_node *sig_node, void *fit)
>>   out:
>>       return ret;
>>  }
>> +#endif
>>
>>  static int fit_verify_hash(struct device_node *hash, const void *data, int data_len)
>>  {
>> @@ -453,10 +455,13 @@ static int fit_open_image(struct fit_handle *handle, const char* unit)
>>
>>  static int fit_open_configuration(struct fit_handle *handle, int num)
>>  {
>> -     struct device_node *conf_node = NULL, *sig_node;
>> +     struct device_node *conf_node = NULL;
>>       char unit_name[10];
>>       const char *unit, *desc;
>> -     int ret, level;
>> +     int level;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CMD_BOOTM_FITIMAGE_SIGNATURE
>> +     struct device_node *sig_node;
>> +#endif
>
> please remove the ifdef
>
>>
>>       conf_node = of_get_child_by_name(handle->root, "configurations");
>>       if (!conf_node)
>> @@ -482,7 +487,10 @@ static int fit_open_configuration(struct fit_handle *handle, int num)
>>       }
>>
>>       level = CHECK_LEVEL_MAX;
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CMD_BOOTM_FITIMAGE_SIGNATURE
>
> please replace the ifdef by
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMD_BOOTM_FITIMAGE_SIGNATURE))
>
>>       for_each_child_of_node(conf_node, sig_node) {
>> +             int ret;
>>               if (handle->verbose)
>>                       of_print_nodes(sig_node, 0);
>>               ret = fit_verify_signature(sig_node, handle->fit);
>> @@ -495,6 +503,9 @@ static int fit_open_configuration(struct fit_handle *handle, int num)
>>
>>       if (level != CHECK_LEVEL_SIG)
>>               return -EINVAL;
>> +#else
>> +     level = CHECK_LEVEL_SIG;
>> +#endif
>>
>>       if (of_property_read_string(conf_node, "kernel", &unit) == 0)
>>               level = min(level, fit_open_image(handle, unit));
>>

Will you include my patch in your patch series, if you'll send v3 or
are you just going to squash my patch into your FIT patch?

Yegor