Hi,
I instrumented boot on my Ubuntu 18.04 server right after systemd startup
and caught an access to:
/sys/firmware/efi/efivars/LoaderDevicePartUUID-4a67b082-0a4c-41cf-b6c7-440b29bb8c4f
This led to:
https://systemd.io/DISCOVERABLE_PARTITIONS/
And then:
https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_INTERFACE/https://systemd.io/AUTOMATIC_BOOT_ASSESSMENT/
My server is configured with Grub to boot (grub and kernel on a HD, root FS
of NVME as grub do not have nvme driver for my card) but the udev is still
checking those systemd-boot variables.
>From a boot loader perspective, we have the following EFI applications:
- Grub2
- EFIBootGuard (used by CIP)
- Systemd-boot (used by ?)
Regardless of the loader, I assume we need to ensure whatever option is
selected by solution builders, they can implement it with our U-Boot
reference implementation of UEFI.
The Systemd boot-bless seems of high interest for rolling back UEFI update
capsules of firmware...
I'd be happy to get some feed back on :
- the systemd-boot technology
- whether we need to implement the above specs in our UEFI implementation
- whether this has an influence on EBBR
Cheers
FF
PS: other references
https://manpages.debian.org/testing/systemd/systemd-boot.7.en.htmlhttps://manpages.debian.org/testing/systemd/systemd-bless-boot.service.8.en…http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/bootctl.1.html
--
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
On 3/11/20 3:20 PM, Francois Ozog wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 13:42, Francois Ozog <francois.ozog(a)linaro.org
> <mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 12:45, Daniel Thompson
> <daniel.thompson(a)linaro.org <mailto:daniel.thompson@linaro.org>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:20:17AM +0100, Francois Ozog wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 07:48, Heinrich Schuchardt
> <xypron.glpk(a)gmx.de <mailto:xypron.glpk@gmx.de>> wrote:
> > > On 3/11/20 12:04 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > > On 3/10/20 7:37 PM, Francois Ozog wrote:
> > > >> Le mar. 10 mars 2020 à 18:37, Daniel Thompson
> > > >> <daniel.thompson(a)linaro.org
> <mailto:daniel.thompson@linaro.org>> a écrit :
> > > >>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 05:35:40PM +0100, Francois Ozog
> wrote:
> > > >>>> This is driven by the BL2 which is platform specific
> and I am not sure
> > > >>>> we can have any influence.
> > > >>>> The flashimage.bin in a number of system consists of a
> (blob) FIP that
> > > >>>> has BL2, SCP stuff, BL31, BL32, BL33.
> > > >>>> Ilias upstream U-Boot patches to change from "ADR" to
> "ADRL" because
> > > >>>> the code grew too much.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm not quite sure I understand the concern here.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Are you still working on systems where the boot ROM
> mandates using MBR
> > > >>> partitioning and attempting to put secure boot on it?
> If so perhaps we
> > > >>> could simply discontinue MBR support for systems with
> secure boot!
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Well..... we want Products on the market to benefit from
> EBBR compliance
> > > >> rather than two years from now. So MBR is inevitable.
> And is not that a
> > > >> pain ;-) Of course its not as clean as we would like but
> “sales first”!
> > > >
> > > > A typical problem is that a SoC has an entry address
> within the first 17
> > > > KiB, e.g. the Allwinner CPUs want a firmware entry point
> at 0x2000. If I
> > > > correctly understand the UEFI standard, one might use
> PartitionEntryLBA
> > > > to place the GPT Partition Entry Array behind the
> firmware in this case.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In the expert mode of gdisk there is command 'j' for moving
> the GPT
> > > Partition Entry Array to an arbitrary sector. This will
> protect the area
> > > between the GPT header and the GPT Partition Entry Array
> from being used
> > > for a partition. The same can be done with parameter -j of
> sgdisk.
> > >
> > > Furthermore gdisk supports creating a hybrid MBR. This
> allow to have
> > > GUID partition table and a MBR partion table at the same
> time where the
> > > MBR partition table mirrors up to three GPT partitions and
> the fourth
> > > MBR partition is used to protect the GUID partition table.
> > >
> > > So requiring GPT and having boards only supporting booting
> from an MBR
> > > partition (like the Raspberry) seems not to be exclusive.
> > >
> >
> > That sounds like a great solution!
>
> The last time we discussed this there was *very* strong opposition
> during meetings to hybrid partitioning and IIRC language was
> added to
> the spec to prohibit it.
>
> Hybrid partitioning is a problem because it imposes to difficult
> to meet
> constraints on partitioning tools provided by the operating system.
>
> In other words if we permit hybrid partitioning in order that
> boot code
> can find the firmware then the operating system would inherit a
> duty to
> not to screw up the firmware loading when it modifies the partition
> tables. It is hard to express how the OS should go about that.
>
> Hence the current approach where we accept that MBR partitioning
> offers an inferior feature set to GPT.
>
>
> We have the following cases:
>
> - FW compatible with GPT (I mean firmware can be searched based on
> GUID partition)
> Ok
>
> - FW that uses offsets and can be positioned at LBA >= 33
> Ok
> Need to define a protective partition
>
> - FW that uses offsets and can be positioned such that space between
> LBA-2 and LBA-33 is used.
> Ok in theory as the header states where the partition entries
> location is specified in a GPT_HEADER "Starting LBA of array of
> partition entries".
> Linux kernel properly loads the partition entries if we push them
> after 16MB.
>
> read_lba <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/ident/read_lba>(state, le64_to_cpu
> <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/ident/le64_to_cpu>(gpt->partition_entry_lba)
>
> But I bet 2 is hardcoded in many tools...
>
> If I had done my homework properly, I would have seen that
> U-Boot CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION_ENTRIES_OFF is just configuring that...
CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION_ENTRIES_OFF is only relevant if you use U-Boot to
create a GUID partition table. When reading a GPT U-Boot correctly
considers the current value of PartitionEntryLBA.
Best regards
Heinrich
> So there is some experience in playing with that.... I'd be happy to
> read ;-)
>
> - FW that supposes LBA-1 (macchiatobin the firmware blob that
> contain TF-A must be here)
>
> In theory OK as Linux will detect bad signature and use the
> alternate GPT
>
> good_pgpt = is_gpt_valid
> <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/ident/is_gpt_valid>(state, GPT_PRIMARY_PARTITION_TABLE_LBA
> <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/ident/GPT_PRIMARY_PARTITION_TABLE_L…>,
> &pgpt, &pptes);
> if (good_pgpt)
> good_agpt = is_gpt_valid
> <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/ident/is_gpt_valid>(state,
> le64_to_cpu
> <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/ident/le64_to_cpu>(pgpt->alternate_lba),
> &agpt, &aptes);
> if (!good_agpt && force_gpt <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/ident/force_gpt>)
> good_agpt = is_gpt_valid
> <https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/ident/is_gpt_valid>(state, lastlba, &agpt, &aptes);
>
> We loose the protective nature of GPT but it sounds like it will be
> working.
>
> That said, we could enhance the EFI specification so that:
> - we have a firmware protective partition
> - the start LBA of the "GPT protective partition (0xEE)" is used to
> define the GPT header placement instead of 1.
> image.png
>
> Daniel.
>
>
>
> --
>
> François-Frédéric Ozog | /Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group/
> T: +33.67221.6485
> francois.ozog(a)linaro.org <mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org>
> | Skype: ffozog
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> François-Frédéric Ozog | /Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group/
> T: +33.67221.6485
> francois.ozog(a)linaro.org <mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org> | Skype: ffozog
>
>
Le mar. 10 mars 2020 à 18:46, Mark Brown <broonie(a)kernel.org> a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 05:37:29PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 05:35:40PM +0100, Francois Ozog wrote:
>
> > > Thanks Leif for the links. I tend to like the ETSI one because it is
> > > somewhat complete on necessary english grammar stuff.
> > > But I am flexible, important we state explicitly the reference
> > > document and we use the language constructs.
>
> > Does ETSI offer us "features" that are missing from RFC 2119.
>
> > Personally I would favour RFC 2119 simply because it is so much better
> > known than the ETSI drafting rules.
>
> > If you cite RFC 2119 and I don't have to go and read anything... and
> > even if I did it is super concise and quick to read.
>
> > Cite ETSI drafting rules, clause 3 and I have to put in a lot more
> > effort.
>
> The RFC 2119 usage of "MUST" is also a more standard English usage (in
> that people are more likely to be familiar with it) than the ETSI SHALL
> so there's a bit of a comprehensibility win.
RFC2119 sold on my side ;-)
>
> --
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
Well, if you think IIot and Edge, you have physical access and the system
is thus vulnerable....
https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/intel-vulnerability-serious-but-un…
Cheers
FF
PS: Intel CSME is an auxiliary micro-controller much like the SCP but with
the capability to access the whole DRAM and having some TrustZone style
role.
--
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
just in case:
[PATCH 000/108] RFC: dm: Add programatic generation of ACP
https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2020-January/397886.html
May be some ideas fir DT overlays...
FF
--
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
Am 12.11.19 um 08:29 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 06:23:47AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 09:10:41PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Am 11.11.19 um 07:40 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 06:42:05AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>>> Am 11.11.19 um 06:27 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 05:56:09AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>>>>> Use of soc_device_to_device() in driver modules causes a build failure.
>>>>>>> Given that the helper is nicely documented in include/linux/sys_soc.h,
>>>>>>> let's export it as GPL symbol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought we were fixing the soc drivers to not need this. What
>>>>>> happened to that effort? I thought I had patches in my tree (or
>>>>>> someone's tree) that did some of this work already, such that this
>>>>>> symbol isn't needed anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do still see this function used in next-20191108 in drivers/soc/.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll be happy to adjust my RFC driver if someone points me to how!
>>>>
>>>> Look at c31e73121f4c ("base: soc: Handle custom soc information sysfs
>>>> entries") for how you can just use the default attributes for the soc to
>>>> create the needed sysfs files, instead of having to do it "by hand"
>>>> which is racy and incorrect.
>>>
>>> Unrelated.
>>>
>>>>> Given the current struct layout, a type cast might work (but ugly).
>>>>> Or if we stay with my current RFC driver design, we could use the
>>>>> platform_device instead of the soc_device (which would clutter the
>>>>> screen more than "soc soc0:") or resort to pr_info() w/o device.
>>>>
>>>> Ick, no, don't cast blindly. What do you need the pointer for? Is this
>>>> for in-tree code?
>>>
>>> No, an RFC patchset: https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11224261/
>>>
>>> As I indicated above, I used it for a dev_info(), which I can easily
>>> avoid by using pr_info() instead:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/realtek/chip.c b/drivers/soc/realtek/chip.c
>>> index e5078c6731fd..f9380e831659 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/soc/realtek/chip.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/realtek/chip.c
>>> @@ -178,8 +178,7 @@ static int rtd_soc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>
>>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, soc_dev);
>>>
>>> - dev_info(soc_device_to_device(soc_dev),
>>> - "%s %s (0x%08x) rev %s (0x%08x) detected\n",
>>> + pr_info("%s %s (0x%08x) rev %s (0x%08x) detected\n",
>>> soc_dev_attr->family, soc_dev_attr->soc_id, chip_id,
>>> soc_dev_attr->revision, chip_rev);
>>
>> First off, the driver should not be spitting out noise for when all goes
>> well like this :)
>
> I didn't follow the discussion closely, but I think I want to object
> here a bit. While I agree that each driver emitting some stuff to the
> log buffer is hardly helpful, seeing the exact SoC details is indeed
> useful at times. With my Debian kernel team member hat on, I'd say
> keep this information. This way the SoC details make it into kernel bug
> reports without effort on our side.
Seconded. For example, RTD1295 will support LSADC only from revision B00
on (and it's not the first time I'm seeing such things in the industry).
So if a user complains, it will be helpful to see that information.
Referencing your Amlogic review, with all due respect for its authors,
the common framework here just lets that information evaporate into the
deeps of sysfs. People who know can check /sys/bus/soc/devices/soc0, but
ordinary users will at most upload dmesg output to a Bugzilla ticket.
And it was precisely info-level boot output from the Amlogic GX driver
that made me aware of this common framework and inspired me to later
contribute such a driver elsewhere myself. That's not a bad effect. ;)
So if anything, we should standardize that output and move it into
soc_device_register(): "<family> <soc_id> [rev <revision>] detected"
with suitable NULL checks? (what I did above for Realtek, minus hex)
The info level seems correct to me - it allows people to use a different
log_level if they only care about warnings or errors on the console;
it's not debug info for that driver, except in my case the accompanying
hex numbers that I'd be happy to drop in favor of standardization.
Another aspect here is that the overall amount of soc_device_register()
users is just an estimated one third above the analysis shared before.
In particular server platforms, be it arm64 or x86_64, that potentially
have more than one SoC integrated in a multi-socket configuration, don't
feed into this soc bus at all! Therefore my comment that
dev_info()-printed "soc soc0:" is kind of useless if there's only one
SoC on those boards. I'm not aware of any tool or a more common file
aggregating this information, certainly not /proc/cpuinfo and I'm not
aware of any special "lssoc" tool either. And if there's no ACPI/DMI
driver feeding support-relevant information into this framework to be
generally useful, I don't expect the big distros to spend time on
improving its usability.
So if we move info output into base/soc.c, we could continue using
dev_info() with "soc"-grep'able prefix in the hopes that someday we'll
have more than one soc device on the bus and will need to distinguish;
otherwise yes, pr_info() would change the output format for Amlogic (and
so would a harmonization of the text), but does anyone really care in
practice? Tools shouldn't be relying on its output format, and humans
will understand equally either way.
Finally, arch/arm seems unique in that it has the machine_desc mechanism
that allows individual SoCs to force creating their soc_device early and
using it as parent for further DT-created platform_devices. With arm64
we've lost that ability, and nios2 is not using it either.
A bad side effect (with SUSE hat on) is that this parent design pattern
does not allow to build such drivers as modules, which means that distro
configs using arm's multi-platform, e.g., CONFIG_ARCH_MULTI_V7 will get
unnecessary code creep as new platforms get added over time (beyond the
basic clk, pinctrl, tty and maybe timer).
Even if it were possible to call into a driver module that early, using
it as parent would seem to imply that all the references by its children
would not allow to unload the module, which I'd consider a flawed design
for such an "optional" read-once driver. If we want the device hierarchy
to have a soc root then most DT based platforms will have a /soc DT node
anyway (although no device_type = "soc") that we probably could have a
device registered for in common code rather than each SoC platform
handling that differently? That might then make soc_register_device()
not the creator of the device (if pre-existent) but the supplier of data
to that core device, which should then allow to unload the data provider
with just the sysfs data disappearing until re-inserted (speeding up the
develop-and-test cycle on say not-so-resource-constrained platforms).
On the other hand, one might argue that such information should just be
parsed by EBBR-conformant bootloaders and be passed to the kernel via
standard UEFI interfaces and DMI tables. But I'm not aware of Barebox
having implemented any of that yet, and even for U-Boot (e.g., Realtek
based consumer devices...) not everyone has the GPL sources or tools to
update their bootloader. So, having the kernel we control gather
information relevant to kernel developers does make some sense to me.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Andreas
P.S. Sorry that a seemingly trivial one-line 0-day fix derailed into
this fundamental use case discussion.
arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/core.c: soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
arch/arm/mach-imx/cpu.c: soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
arch/arm/mach-mvebu/mvebu-soc-id.c: soc_dev =
soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
arch/arm/mach-mxs/mach-mxs.c: soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c: soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra.c: struct device *parent =
tegra_soc_device_register();
arch/arm/mach-zynq/common.c: soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
arch/nios2/platform/platform.c: soc_dev =
soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-gx-socinfo.c: soc_dev =
soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-mx-socinfo.c: soc_dev =
soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/atmel/soc.c: soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/bcm/brcmstb/common.c: soc_dev =
soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/fsl/guts.c: soc_dev = soc_device_register(&soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/imx/soc-imx-scu.c: soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/imx/soc-imx8.c: soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/qcom/socinfo.c: qs->soc_dev =
soc_device_register(&qs->attr);
drivers/soc/realtek/chip.c: soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/renesas/renesas-soc.c: soc_dev =
soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-chipid.c: soc_dev =
soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/fuse-tegra.c: dev = soc_device_register(attr);
drivers/soc/ux500/ux500-soc-id.c: soc_dev =
soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/versatile/soc-integrator.c: soc_dev =
soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
drivers/soc/versatile/soc-realview.c: soc_dev =
soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
Hi,
following the proposal at the last Device Tree Evolution call I'd like to
propose an agenda for Wednesday that Steve could complement (see below).
You may want to add or remove agenda items...
We need to synchronize with "kernel day" agenda as some of us need to
attend both events.
Cheers
FF
4h: DeviceTree Lead Project
-
to be defined by Steve McIntyre
4h: DependableBoot Lead Project
-
1h: status and deliverable planning for next cycle
-
EBBR specs next steps? compliance.
-
UEFI SecureBoot
-
EFI payload authentication
-
UEFI Secure variable handling
-
Linux kernel UEFI variable caching and updates (as a capsule
update)
-
Define other ‘must-have’ UEFI features (i.e DBT??)
-
firmwareTPM
-
UEFI MeasuredBoot
-
32bits UEFI support
-
Qemu EBBR
-
implications of our work on EDKII
-
1h: Robust boot "research" & PoC for next cycle
-
anti-brickable incl. TF-A: “philosophy” and hints to implement
-
UEFI watchdog: when to call UEFI exit-boot-services?
-
2h: overall boot architecture evolution
-
interdependencies between TF-A, TrustZone (SPM, OPTEE, SCPI), OS,
SCMI - many things are happening and I am not sure we understand tricky
interactions that may result in race conditions (for instance
SCMI in OPTEE
kernel and its relations with UEFI runtime services). The idea
is to try to
identify the hairiest issues that we should analyze post Connect.
-
Boot orchestration
-
"Contracts" / list all the assumptions
--
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog(a)linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
Evidently I've managed to overlap the EBBR monthly with the 96Boards SC monthly meeting. Does anyone object to rescheduling the EBBR monthly to be the 1st Tuesday of each month? (starting next week).
g.
________________________________________
From: Grant Likely
Sent: 12 March 2019 11:38
To: rob.herring(a)linaro.org; Ben Eckermann; Dong Wei; perobins(a)redhat.com; ryan.harkin(a)linaro.org; Udit Kumar; wmills(a)ti.com; nicolas.dechesne(a)linaro.org; Tom Rini; Peter Robinson; Tony Wu; tom.rini(a)konsulko.com; Yang Zhang; Nicusor Penisoara; Andreas Färber; Michal Simek; David Rusling; Peter Jones; Mark Brown; Matthias Brugger; daniel.thompson(a)linaro.org
Subject: EBBR Monthly - 4th Tuesday
When: 28 May 2019 15:00-16:00.
Where: WebEx
Biweekly EBBR status call
- Online meeting: https://arm-onsite.webex.com/meet/gralik01
- Phone
- Access code: 809 053 990
- 1-408-792-6300 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
- 1-877-668-4490 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada)
- 44-203-478-5285 Call-in toll number (UK)
- 08-002061177 Call-in toll-free (UK)
More access numbers:
https://arm-onsite.webex.com/cmp3300/webcomponents/widget/globalcallin/glob…
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Quick poll: who would be interested in a U-Boot/EBBR plugfest event collocates with ELC-EU this year (week of 28th Oct)?
In the EBBR meetings we’ve tossed around the idea of an U-Boot/EBBR plugfest to work out compatibility issues between OS distros and upstream U-Boot SBC support. The idea is to get a number of SBCs supported by mainline U-Boot with UEFI features turned on, along with U-Boot & OS developers and hold a 1 day debug sprint to work out how many platforms can work with ‘stock’ OS images. Details to be worked out if this looks viable.
I’ve asked the LF folks if they have space on either Thursday 31st Oct or Friday 1st Nov. They are checking availability, but no commitments have been made. It would help to know if this date and location is feasible.
What do you think? Would you come to a plug fest attached to ELC-EU? Would you be interested in helping to organise? Or, is there another time & location that would work better?
Cheers,
g.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Hi,
I'm now working on implementing UEFI secure boot on U-boot,
in particular, adding "dbt" (timestamp-based revocation) support
as described in UEFI specification, section 32.5.1 paragraph#7.
# To be honest, the description is quite hard for me to understand.
# I've got what it means only after reading corresponding EDK2 code.
My question is: Is there any signing tool on linux, with which
we can directly "timestamp" a PE image with RFC3161-compliant timestamp?
I know that "signtool" in Microsoft's Windows SDK has this feature,
but I wonder what tool major distros use for this purpose.
(They also need to use windows for creating their own distributions?)
I don't think it is very difficult to add the feature to existing
tools like "sbsign," but it would be nice to use "proven" tools
for testing.
Thanks,
-Takahiro Akashi
