On 04/10/21, Alex G. wrote:
On 10/4/21 3:32 PM, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz, Foundries wrote:
Hello,
hi Alex,
We are enabling secure boot on Zynqmp with SPL.
The issue however is that during secure boot, the bootrom not only validates the first loader (SPL and PMUFW combo) but it will also expect a signed bitstream during load(FPGA).
Since currently the SPL load of an FPGA image from FIT does not support loading images for authentication (fpga_loads), I'd like to discuss how to best implement such support.
What do you mean by "loading images for authentication" ?
right, it eventually means executing fpga_loads insted of fpga_load ( a function that will provide additional params to the PMUFW.
"loads" will load FPGA bitstreams that are either signed, encrypted or both. When they are only signed, they are first authenticated by the PMUFW and then loaded.
A pretty standard file.its description of the FPGA loadable looks like this:
fpga { description = "FPGA binary"; data = /incbin/("${DEPLOY_DIR_IMAGE}/${SPL_FPGA_BINARY}"); type = "fpga"; arch = "${UBOOT_ARCH}"; compression = "none"; load = <${fpgaloadaddr}>; hash-1 { algo = "${FIT_HASH_ALG}"; }; };
We could extend imagetool.h struct image_tool_params to add more params or perhpas just define different 'types' of fpga?
Check "4) '/images' node" in doc/uImage.FIT/source_file_format.txt
The intent is to give either:
- loadaddr="$(addr)" : copy image to $(addr), Done
- compatible="": Use this driver to upload the FPGA
It seems to me like the right way to go is to make a new compatible="" FPGA loader is for fpga_load():
fpga { description = "FPGA binary"; data = /incbin/("${YOCTO_BS_PATH}"); type = "fpga"; compression = "none"; compatible = "zynqmp-fancy-fpga",
so you think we should capture on compatible the characteristics of the FPGA image?
hash-1 { algo = "${FIT_HASHISH}"; };};
Something like: "fpga" "fpga-auth" : authenticated "fpga-enc" : encrypted "fpga-sec" : encrypted and authenticated
Can these properties be inferred from the FPGA image? If not, they could be required when using a new fpga loader. I don't think they should be added to "fpga-legacy".
maybe.. with a bit of boot header parsing... But doing so would deviate from the current approach making it somewhat inconsistent: ie, there is no a common "fpga load" command but instead we have "fpga load" and "fpga loads" as separate commands so perhaps the parsing is not that obvious or it would have been done differently. I'd rather follow the current approach and just explicitly qualify the bitstream.
Alex
Then it would be a matter of modifying https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/common/spl/spl_fit.c#L572
any thoughts?
TIA Jorge