Re: two questions on verified boot

2022-03-11 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Rasmus, On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 08:41, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > On 27/01/2022 16.06, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Rasmus, > > > > On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 07:55, Rasmus Villemoes > > wrote: > >> > >> (1) When one wants to get rid of CONFIG_LEGACY_IMAGE_FORMAT, one also > >> has to wrap any boot

Re: two questions on verified boot

2022-01-27 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
On 27/01/2022 16.06, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Rasmus, > > On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 07:55, Rasmus Villemoes > wrote: >> >> (1) When one wants to get rid of CONFIG_LEGACY_IMAGE_FORMAT, one also >> has to wrap any boot script in a FIT rather than a uImage. While it's >> not directly documented anywhere

Re: two questions on verified boot

2022-01-27 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Rasmus, On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 at 07:55, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > (1) When one wants to get rid of CONFIG_LEGACY_IMAGE_FORMAT, one also > has to wrap any boot script in a FIT rather than a uImage. While it's > not directly documented anywhere how to do that, it seems that a minimal > .its for

Re: two questions on verified boot

2021-11-21 Thread Dhananjay Phadke
On 11/21/2021 6:55 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > (2) Assuming for the moment that I would be happy with just using > required=image, am I right in that not only does that mean that the > combination of kernel/fdt/initramfs is not verified, merely the > individual parts, but more importantly (a mix'

two questions on verified boot

2021-11-21 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
(1) When one wants to get rid of CONFIG_LEGACY_IMAGE_FORMAT, one also has to wrap any boot script in a FIT rather than a uImage. While it's not directly documented anywhere how to do that, it seems that a minimal .its for achieving it is /dts-v1/; / { description = "U-Boot script(s)";