RE: [PATCH 0/2] efi: Enhance capsule loader to support signed Quark images
From: Kweh, Hock Leong
Date: Wed Feb 15 2017 - 22:01:17 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Kiszka [mailto:jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:00 AM
> To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Ard Biesheuvel
> <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-efi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux Kernel Mailing
> List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>; Kweh,
> Hock Leong <hock.leong.kweh@xxxxxxxxx>; Bryan O'Donoghue
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] efi: Enhance capsule loader to support signed Quark
> On 2017-02-15 19:50, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2017-02-15 19:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> See patch 2 for the background.
> >>> Series has been tested on the Galileo Gen2, to exclude regressions,
> >>> with a firmware.cap without security header and the SIMATIC IOT2040
> >>> which requires the header because of its mandatory secure boot.
> >> Briefly looking to the code it looks like a real hack.
> >> Sorry, but it would be carefully (re-)designed.
> > The interface that the firmware provides us? That should have been
> > done differently, I agree, but I'm not too much into those firmware
> > details, specifically when it comes to signatures.
> > The Linux code was designed around that suboptimal situation. If there
> > are better ideas, I'm all ears.
> Expanding CC's as requested by Andy.
While I upstreaming the capsule loader patches, I did work with maintainer
Matt and look into this security header created for Quark. Eventually both
of us agreed that this will not be upstream to mainline as it is really a Quark
The proper implementation may require to work with UEFI community
to expand its capsule spec to support signed binary.