On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 12:44:45PM +1200, Eva Crystal wrote:
> Tom asked me to base my image-gate series on v9, so I tried it. Two
> findings, both about v9 rather than my patches.
>
> v9 does not apply to current main (a44f46af0a). 1/8 is already
> upstream and 2/8-5/8 apply with -3, but 6/8 conflicts in
> fit_all_image_verify():
>
> <<<<<<< HEAD
> if (!fit_image_verify(fit, noffset))
> return 0;
> printf("\n");
> =======
> if (!fit_image_verify(fit, noffset))
> return 0;
> printf("OK\n");
> }
>
> Cause is 2c9b117aa4 ("boot/fit: use fdt_for_each_subnode() in
> image-fit.c", 2026-05-08), which dropped a nesting level. v9 was
> written against the older form. 7/8 and 8/8 are untested behind it.
>
> So: Tom, which base do you want for mine? Rebasing onto v9's own base
> commit moves me back onto the July tag, which is not submittable
> against main. I would rather wait for a v10 on current main than post
> a resolution of someone else's series.
>
> One other thing, Ludwig. v9's "restore debug message instead of error"
> walks the missing /signature report on the config gate back to
> debug(). My image-gate patch moves the same condition the other way,
> to log_warning() at default loglevel. No code conflict - different
> functions - but landed together the tree has two adjacent gates
> reading the same node, one silent and one not. With
> FIT_REQUIRE_CONFIG_SIGS=y yours returns -EPERM having printed nothing.
> Happy to align with whatever you settled on; I just do not want the
> two to read as an accident.You can wait for v10, thanks. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
