Hello Sascha, On 15.02.24 09:17, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 07:09:16PM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: >> Could you make the signing inside the barebox build system optional >> for HAB? Then we could have a prompt symbol that depends on HABv4, e.g. >> CONFIG_HAB_SIGN_IMAGES or something and disabling that would require >> external signing like for AHAB. I think this would improve user experience >> a fair bit, because HAB and AHAB could be handled the same build-system >> side and it would be easily discoverable in Kconfig that one supports >> sigining internally and the other doesn't. > > Originally it was a design decision to integrate the signing into > barebox. I wanted to make barebox self contained and not depend on > external tools to generate images. > I am not sure though if anyone really builds signed images without > the help of a build system. So I had the same thought as well if we > could let the build system do the signing also for HAB. I haven't looked > into it what it takes to implement that. One point where it gets > difficult is our special trick to create signed USB images. We handle > the DCD table in imx-usb-loader to setup DDR and disable DCD in the > image. To make that work with signed images we sign an image which > has the DCD table disabled. I am not asking that you implement in-barebox signing for AHAB, rather that you make it optional for existing HAB, so they can be handled the same if needed. Now that you just had AHAB in your hands, it should just be a finger flexing for you, right? ;) Cheers, Ahmad > > Sascha > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
