linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mhi: host: Add standard elf image download functionality

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <gcyjhnn33xcuiqfmiqt7diijncovp3smcnncyvfsnwo45v5z3m@plbtdjbxksgr>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 11:21:11 +0900
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Qiang Yu <qiang.yu@....qualcomm.com>, mhi@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Mayank Rana <mayank.rana@....qualcomm.com>, Baochen Qiang <quic_bqiang@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mhi: host: Add standard elf image download
 functionality

On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 09:24:06PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 10:07:01AM +0900, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 03:57:54PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 01:37:12AM -0800, Qiang Yu wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 12:57:11AM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Dec 07, 2025 at 10:35:26PM -0800, Qiang Yu wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Dec 06, 2025 at 01:25:34PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 06:33:15PM -0800, Qiang Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Mayank Rana <mayank.rana@....qualcomm.com>
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Currently, the FBC image is a non-standard ELF file that contains a single
> > > > > > > > ELF header, followed by segments for SBL, and WLAN FW. However, TME-L
> > > > > > > > (Trust Management Engine Lite) supported devices (eg. QCC2072) requires
> > > > > > > > separate ELF headers for SBL and WLAN FW segments due to TME-L image
> > > > > > > > authentication requirement.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Current image format contains two sections in a single binary:
> > > > > > > > - First 512KB: ELF header + SBL segments
> > > > > > > > - Remaining: WLAN FW segments
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The TME-L supported image format contains two sections with two elf
> > > > > > > > headers in a single binary:
> > > > > > > > - First 512KB: First ELF header + SBL segments
> > > > > > > > - Remaining: Second ELF header + WLAN FW segments
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Download behavior:
> > > > > > > > - Legacy: 1. First 512KB via BHI (ELF header + SBL)
> > > > > > > >           2. Full image via BHIe
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > - TME-L: 1. First 512KB via BHI (First ELF header + SBL)
> > > > > > > >          2. Remaining via BHIe (Second ELF header + WLAN FW segments)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Add standard_elf_image flag to mhi_controller_config to indicate TME-L
> > > > > > > > supported image format. When set, MHI skips the first 512KB during WLAN FW
> > > > > > > > download over BHIe as it is loaded in BHI phase.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What is standard about it?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The TME-L requires standard elf image format which includes single EFL
> > > > > > header and WLAN FW segment.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The "standard_elf_image" seems misleading. Since the new image format is
> > > > > > required for TME-L image authentication, how about using 
> > > > > > tme_supported_image?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just elf_image?
> > > > 
> > > > Is it too generic for this specific use case. Current image format also
> > > > contains elf header.
> > > 
> > > upload_elf_image?
> > > 
> > 
> > Nope. What does 'upload' even mean here? The 'TIS and ELF' spec v1.2 clearly
> > defines that an ELF executable can have only one ELF header. So I'd prefer
> > 'standard_elf_image' to differentiate it from the non-spec-conformant ELF image
> > used previously.
> 
> What kind of ELF image was used previously? Could you please explain
> what do 'First ELF header' vs 'Second ELF header' mean here?
> 

I don't have the details of it, but Qiang should be able to explain. But AFAIC,
that was a non-standard ELF image and the new one is going to be spec
conformant.

- Mani

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்