On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:10:42AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 08:54:12PM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 09:41:56AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Simon,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 05:28:59PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:31:26AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 12/4/19 3:43 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Tom, Simon, Heinrich,
I have submitted three major patch sets for UEFI secure boot:
- x509/pkcs7 parser
- RSA library extension
- UEFI secure boot
I have no technical issues to fix now and have seen only a few minor comments on them (if I confirm that you have no more comments, I can submit new version almost immediately). Considering those, can I expect that those patches be merged in v2020.01?
If not, do you need to have more time for your reviewing? What else do you expect from my side to accelerate the upstream?
We are reaching the end of the release cycle. So do not expect any of these patch series to be merged in v2020.01. cf. https://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/ReleaseCycle
I have often seen several patches (not bug fix) merged even after "merge window". Anyway,
To my understanding the UEFI secure boot series depends on the other two so it must be merged last.
So once the first two patch set are accepted by the maintainers, do you agree to merging the third one (i.e. secure boot patch itself) promptly? -> Heinrich
As I said, I have had no technical issues on the first two patches and haven't heard any comments/objections from the maintainers so far. Are you willing to accept them for the next release? -> Tom, Simon
Can you confirm that you have queued my "RSA library extension" patch in your -next(?) branch, please?
Please note that I raised a concern with the RSA patch series that needs to be addressed. There's unexplained / unexpected size growth on platforms that aren't otherwise enabling new features. Thanks!
I misunderstood your statement there. Questions:
- How did you measure the size growth? Please specify the exact command(s).
- Did you use T1042RDB_PI_NAND_SECURE_BOOT_defconfig without any change?
So, I have the following script for doing size tests: #!/bin/bash
# Initial and constant buildman args ARGS="-devl" ALL=0 KEEP=0
# Find our arguments while test $# -ne 0; do if [ "$1" == "--all" ]; then ALL=1 shift 1 elif [ "$1" == "--branch" ]; then BRANCH=$2 shift 2 elif [ "$1" == "--keep" ]; then KEEP=1 ARGS="$ARGS -k" shift 1 else MACHINE=$1 shift fi done
if [ -z $MACHINE ]; then echo Usage: $0 MACHINE [--all] [--keep] [--branch BRANCH] exit 1 fi
# If not all, then only first/last if [ $ALL -ne 1 ]; then ARGS="$ARGS --step 0" fi
if [ ! -z $BRANCH ]; then ARGS="$ARGS -b $BRANCH" else ARGS="$ARGS -b `git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD`" fi
mkdir -p /tmp/$MACHINE
export SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=`date +%s` ./tools/buildman/buildman -o /tmp/$MACHINE $ARGS -SBC $MACHINE ./tools/buildman/buildman -o /tmp/$MACHINE $ARGS -SsB $MACHINE
[ $KEEP -eq 0 ] && rm -rf /tmp/$MACHINE
And yes, I applied just the series and built the world. The T1042RDB_PI_NAND_SECURE_BOOT_defconfig config along with a handful of other PowerPC platforms (also of the _SECURE_BOOT variety) had the same size growth. I didn't bisect down to the specific commit in question at the time.