Tom, Wolfgang, On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 02:48:42PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > Wolfgang, > > Thank you for your comments. > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:47:56AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Dear Akashi Takahiro, > > > > In message <20190517001206.gx11...@linaro.org> you wrote: > > > > > > > Who: usually the responsible custodians > > > > > > "Custodians" don't always mean sub-system maintainers. Right? > > > > It's just a different name for the same thing. > > Okay. > > > > In fact, I have already imported relevant kernel code into U-Boot > > > and it now works perfectly with my experimental UEFI secure boot patch, > > > but see the total size (and numbers) of files imported is quite big. > > > I wonder who is willing to maintain them: > > ... > > > 37 files changed, 6409 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > Well, if you compare for example against libressl-portable , then > > this git repository has 180 files with more than 20,000 lines. > > I think that there are two different approaches in using > external code (library). > 1.import necessary source files into U-Boot repository, customize them > and build them with the rest of U-Boot > 2.build it as a static library, either totally outside of U-Boot > or as a git submodule, and link it, i.e. only needed binary blobs, > to U-Boot. > (I don't know any existing libraries like this in U-Boot though.) > > We can adopt only (1) for kernel code, but *in general* (2) as well > for a library. That way, we may potentially save/minimize our own > maintenance cost, again *in general.* > > Those said, it seems to me that, gnutls, for instance, is not well > optimized for smaller (or purpose-specific) systems. For example, > _wrap_nettle_pk_verify(), public key verification function, supports > not only RSA, but also DSA, ECDSA and so on with no "opt-out" options > while UEFI secure boot only needs and supports RSA. > > > We are adding a lot of functionality, and anyone who wants to use > > this will have to pay the price. But this is what I mentioned > > before: I think the kernel code has already been tweaked with an > > eye on resource consumption, while standard public libraries have > > not. > > I'm not very sure about your last statement above, but as far as > the customisability is concerned some libraries may have an issue > in (2) as I mentioned above. > > In this sense, I still want to seek a possibility of using other > smaller libraries, like mbedTLS. > (mbedTLS has another issue, lacking pkcs7 parser.) > > > The kernel code may be big, but I would be surprised if there are > > smaller and leaner alternatives with similar quality? > > > > As for who is willing to maintain it: I have no idea. Usually it > > turns out to be the original implementoer / who pushed the code > > upstream into U-Boot. > > Okay, but for most of examples you mentioned as linux-origin code, > there are no explicit maintainers. Right?
Do you have any further comments regarding maintainability? (The *quality*, or trustworthiness, of the original code is an orthogonal issue.) Thanks, -Takahiro Akashi > -Takahiro Akashi > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Wolfgang Denk > > > > -- > > DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk > > HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany > > Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de > > miracle: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or > > accomplishment. - Webster's Dictionary _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot