Re: [PATCH 0/2] efi: Enhance capsule loader to support signed Quark images

["Bryan O'Donoghue" <pure.logic@nexus-software.ie>]

On 16/02/17 03:00, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Kiszka [mailto:jan.kiszka@siemens.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:00 AM
>> To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>; Ard Biesheuvel
>> <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>; linux-efi@vger.kernel.org; Linux Kernel Mailing
>> List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>; Kweh,
>> Hock Leong <hock.leong.kweh@intel.com>; Bryan O'Donoghue
>> <pure.logic@nexus-software.ie>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] efi: Enhance capsule loader to support signed Quark
>> images
>>
>> On 2017-02-15 19:50, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2017-02-15 19:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> See patch 2 for the background.
>>>>>
>>>>> Series has been tested on the Galileo Gen2, to exclude regressions,
>>>>> with a firmware.cap without security header and the SIMATIC IOT2040
>>>>> which requires the header because of its mandatory secure boot.
>>>>
>>>> Briefly looking to the code it looks like a real hack.
>>>> Sorry, but it would be carefully (re-)designed.
>>>
>>> The interface that the firmware provides us? That should have been
>>> done differently, I agree, but I'm not too much into those firmware
>>> details, specifically when it comes to signatures.
>>>
>>> The Linux code was designed around that suboptimal situation. If there
>>> are better ideas, I'm all ears.
>>>
>>
>> Expanding CC's as requested by Andy.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> While I upstreaming the capsule loader patches, I did work with maintainer
> Matt and look into this security header created for Quark. Eventually both
> of us agreed that this will not be upstream to mainline as it is really a Quark
> specific implementation.

What's the logic of that ?

It should be possible to provide a hook (or a custom function).

>
> The proper implementation may require to work with UEFI community
> to expand its capsule spec to support signed binary.

Are you volunteering to do that with - getting the CSH into the UEFI spec ?

If not then we should have a method to load/ignore a capsule including 
the CSH, if so then we should have a realistic timeline laid out for 
getting that spec work done.

Hint: I don't believe integrating the CSH into the UEFI standard will 
happen...

>
>
> Regards,
> Wilson
>