Skip to content

iMX8mm: support Foundries.io secure boot #227

Closed
ldts wants to merge 6 commits intofoundriesio:masterfrom
ldts:imx8mm
Closed

iMX8mm: support Foundries.io secure boot #227
ldts wants to merge 6 commits intofoundriesio:masterfrom
ldts:imx8mm

Conversation

@ldts
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ldts ldts commented Nov 6, 2020

This PR needs bumping u-boot to: foundriesio/u-boot#31
(check that PR as it contains the required configuration files for uboot and uboot-mfgtool)

  • u-boot.itb images are hashed during build with the meta-lmp keys.
  • the u-boot.itb configuration node is signed with the meta-lmp keys.

==> SPL will validate the signature in u-boot.itb and the hashes

  • spl must be signed separately with the cst script in lmp-manifest/conf/imx_hab4/ if we want it to be validated with HABv4 ROM

Foundries io Secure Boot on iMX

@ldts ldts force-pushed the imx8mm branch 3 times, most recently from effa087 to baa95af Compare November 6, 2020 17:54
@ldts ldts changed the title Imx8mm iMX8mm: support secure boot - split imx-boot image into SPL and uboot.itb and allow the UUU flash them. Nov 6, 2020
ldts added 2 commits November 9, 2020 08:32
Add spl.dtb and u-boot-nodtb

Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <[email protected]>
@ldts ldts changed the title iMX8mm: support secure boot - split imx-boot image into SPL and uboot.itb and allow the UUU flash them. iMX8mm: support Foundries.io secure boot Nov 9, 2020
bbnote "building ${SOC_TARGET} - ${REV_OPTION} V2X=NO ${target}"
make SOC=${SOC_TARGET} ${REV_OPTION} V2X=NO flash_linux_m4
else
if [ "${MACHINE}" = "imx8mmevk" ]; then
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

instead of this, we should perhaps have IMBOOT_TARGETS=flash_spl defined in its own machine.conf file

@ldts
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

ldts commented Nov 25, 2020

we are going to need this PR if we want to try RPMB at some point (just because it would be good to test in our final incarnation of the release). maybe we could review next week and merge it on the next release?

@ricardosalveti
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Closing this one in favor of #254

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants