On 6/5/19 5:03 AM, Peng Fan wrote: [...]
It is not duplication of FIT. Container support the similar function of FIT image, but it is not only that.
So what is it ?
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
nxp.com%2Fdocs%2Fen%2Freference-manual%2FIMX8DQXPRM.pdf&da ta=02%7C
01%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7C72216052f4234a93ad1f08d6e95ed782%7C6 86ea1d3b
c2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C1%7C636952990895125305&sdat a=KO%2B0e
E3v%2FkHuJ%2BhR7mBgc4NWXxbMUupfubXXu%2BueIWo%3D&reserv ed=0
Chapter 5 has information about container set and container.
Thanks, any specific part of those 80 pages ?
Figure 5-24. Container Format has a picture about a single container. i.MX8 container also support container sets, support encrypt blob, certificates, SRK management. Support signature to the whole container, no need single image inside container.
Isn't that all supported in fitImage too ?
I don't think I get it. Why would I, as an iMX8 user, want to pick custom new vendor-specific format over years-proven generic fitImage?
We not against FIT, we already use FIT on i.MX8M, to let spl to authenticate FIT image using ROM HAB, not using crypto driver.
Great
What is the selling point here ?
We would not introduce cypto driver in SPL stage, that means HAB FIT and AHAB container needs to be dropped when SPL loading other images. ROM already provides API for bootloader to authenticate images, introducing complex crypto driver in SPL could enlarge code size and make things complicated.
Ah I see, so it's all making the whole crypto simpler by offloading the hard parts into the firmware, which just magically handles everything , without having much extra code in the SPL ?
Yes. Use what ROM provides will make things easier for U-Boot.
Is it possible to perform a security audit on the ROM as easily as on U-Boot ? I mean, U-Boot is free software, the source is available, so security researchers can easily scrutinize it. Is the ROM ?