Re: [PATCH] FIT: look for hash-1 as well as hash@1 nodes in signature check

[Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 10:40:35AM +0100, matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com wrote:
> From: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
> 
> The examples in the U-boot docs use "hash-N" as the name for hash nodes.
> It seems "hash@N" was used instead at some point during the development of
> the FIT format and "hash-N" is more correct; support for "hash@N" is
> preserved for backward compatibility.

Indeed. dtc lately throughs warnings when a node with a '@' in it
doesn't have a reg property.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
> ---
>  common/image-fit.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/common/image-fit.c b/common/image-fit.c
> index dfd1fa02c..356c1ae5d 100644
> --- a/common/image-fit.c
> +++ b/common/image-fit.c
> @@ -392,7 +392,9 @@ static int fit_verify_hash(struct fit_handle *handle, struct device_node *image,
>  		ret = -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> -	hash = of_get_child_by_name(image, "hash@1");
> +	hash = of_get_child_by_name(image, "hash-1");
> +	if (!hash)
> +		hash = of_get_child_by_name(image, "hash@1");

A few lines below we have the same with:

	sig_node = of_get_child_by_name(image, "signature@1");

Care to fix this aswell in this patch?

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox