[Suit] Fwd: Firmware Update Paper

Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> Tue, 03 December 2019 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <emmanuel.baccelli@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F172B12002E for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 05:04:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6xcC_wq_X6h8 for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 05:04:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-f41.google.com (mail-ot1-f41.google.com [209.85.210.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 054081200F7 for <suit@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 05:04:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-f41.google.com with SMTP id k14so2817355otn.4 for <suit@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 05:04:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=uKU2rlXqxW+MydCMxlnLO1g1zMqnlvv9bfu6d6oFNBQ=; b=ZVvqE1T7wvPrWj+csDWS5Pm2gUDcdXGwORRHupdyBskINb/dzuSZLZcOWZmxgddlYW +jtnm8A8YnFDl846wf7FPKSByB+C0JcZyFu9Wt5AB749fGs51ScuaxOaeWYzb8Z6HSRa v5qhRZOP4efVQtDHW/c8xN5fkcBUYUDSs5iSho2OhXIqZLT5f3qyc/boGFB9+M1fnb8S zV2o3PKfghihkxhYvqgvHAcdk7P9UFAyVLEey0W1fhIXq0U3Im873DdE1k0gpEX/NWgM F3QQp/41aCM+mzep9/hks0xEEoJ6K77IzOltrcAYPJJYcPvSufYIqfoZ/RcWXKBxcc+A LnBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWt9lxsNKmUZB7L3rGWeq3QVDEpRak5nRZECL0/1s4s4J0BmXoq T8kSXeZARG9y/fzbrUx0ohKQkHdRO9y5TAjGUB+2ka/j
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzOT7zWXrqi3/JAHb5po81IJ5l+7z0c/ZKQm0xfH0U/IDV9OgtVBeR/EYy9at5kUO1UfKM2Ws2CMA1fwLQKmxQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6b06:: with SMTP id g6mr3021505otp.93.1575378293391; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 05:04:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <VI1PR08MB53600B1D1A194F49B67B90DFFAC60@VI1PR08MB5360.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <20191127203651.GA117656@davidb.org> <CANK0pbaWkn7w2swRgkOqsTubE1os=rDo2BLjrTZ5eW6ePv3WnA@mail.gmail.com> <20191129183627.GA16289@davidb.org> <DB6PR0801MB1879D9742622EA0AE08A8B72EA430@DB6PR0801MB1879.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CABNHR1yEFvgEzHjBhpqTW-FX+LQTVYuSJE_9SP9OMwzjWsdORQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANK0pbaf8TTtMOSKHD0D-73+MCzSdjk7p+6hVO0WzpSxhF2fVg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNHR1z4N=uH9d5DvyYi17DCULqu3T6Ve9k-_EJr-37zUjF-uw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNHR1z4N=uH9d5DvyYi17DCULqu3T6Ve9k-_EJr-37zUjF-uw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:04:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CANK0pbYGbzu8VAr7ZuzUOY1yQ75qkMKQ6PAncZCfkH2=RZWNUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: suit@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009085470598cc577b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/L_lUp1CON9x6LjqjVlT39KH78b4>
Subject: [Suit] Fwd: Firmware Update Paper
X-BeenThere: suit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Software Updates for Internet of Things <suit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/suit/>
List-Post: <mailto:suit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 13:04:59 -0000

Hi Szymon

below some more information, since you ask ;)

In the experiment you point out (reported in Table 3 and 4 in [1]) the
transfer of the firmware binary + the manifest (totaling ~35kB) took about
11 seconds.
The 802.15.4 radio was used in 2.4GHz band in default mode (we used an
off-the-shelf SAMR21 board [2] for this experiment).
The signature verification was performed with the HACL library (ed25519) on
an ARM Cortex-M0+ and took approx. 7 seconds -- so yes, pretty long indeed,
in this case.

For other microcontrollers and/or with other signature schemes or
alternative implementations/libraries, the speed & memory footprint we
measured are compared in Tables 8, 7 and 6 (see [1]).

As observed in the paper:
    - the time spent on signature verification heavily depends on the type
of microcontroller, on the signature scheme, and on the specific
implementation;
    - crypto's footprint in Flash memory can significantly impact the size
of update binaries which need to be transferred over the network.

Cheers,

Emmanuel

[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8725488
[2] https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/wiki/Board:-Samr21-xpro

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:53 AM Szymon Słupik <simon@silvair.com> wrote:

> Thanks Emmanuel,
>
> So the PHY data rate was 250kb/s, right?
>
> WRT Figure 3 (tIme spent) 38% is signature verification and 60% is
> transfer. That seems like signature verification is taking a huge amount
> of time... or was it a different data rate?
>
> Best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 5:37 PM Emmanuel Baccelli <
> Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>> Hi Szymon
>>
>> in the paper [1] for our experiements we used CoAP as transport, over
>> UDP, 6LoWPAN and IEEE 802.15.4 low power radio.
>>
>> However the open source RIOT implementation which stemmed out also works
>> out-of-the-box on other link layers too (among others BLE [3], wired [1]
>> ...).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Emmanuel
>>
>> [1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8725488
>> [2] https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/tree/master/examples/suit_update
>> [3] https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/pull/12391
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:58 AM Szymon Słupik <simon@silvair.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Hannes,
>>>
>>> What transport did you use? I could not find that information explicitly
>>> stated in the paper...
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:20 AM Brendan Moran <Brendan.Moran@arm.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> The manifest generator that I released previously was apache
>>>> 2.0-licensed. I don't plan to change that for the next release. I'm also
>>>> developing a manifest parser which I anticipate being released under the
>>>> same license.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Brendan
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Suit <suit-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of David Brown
>>>> Sent: 29 November 2019 18:36
>>>> To: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
>>>> Cc: suit@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Suit] Firmware Update Paper
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 12:46:42PM +0100, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The open source implementation stemming from our paper [1] is embedded
>>>> > into the RIOT operating system, which is indeed licensed with LGPL.
>>>> > The implementation is compliant with draft-ietf-suit-manifest-00 and
>>>> > has recently been merged into the main branch of RIOT, see [2].
>>>> > Reuse and further contributions to this code base are welcome!
>>>> >
>>>> > Relicensing this code is not planned as far as I know (@ code
>>>> co-authors:
>>>> > please correct me if I'm wrong).
>>>>
>>>> This is fine.  The authors of the code are free to license the code
>>>> however they wish.  I just want to make sure it is clear that this code is
>>>> not useful as a general example, and if the SUIT wishes to have reference
>>>> code, it will need to be licensed differently.
>>>>
>>>> > Related: we know of several companies, big and small, which use RIOT
>>>> > in their IoT products (and thus use software including -- but not
>>>> > limited to -- LGPL
>>>> > code) and they are quite happy with it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure there are a few companies that are willing to use LGPL
>>>> licensed embedded code, but their existence doesn't negate that there are
>>>> large numbers of users who will be unable to use (or even look at) this
>>>> code.
>>>>
>>>> One example is that both Zephyr and MCUboot are licensed under the
>>>> Apache 2.0 license.  Most parties feel that the Apache 2.0 and the LGPL 2
>>>> license are incompatible, and this code cannot be linked together into a
>>>> single product.  Since I'd like to include SUIT support into MCUboot, this
>>>> means I'll have to be doing an implementation from scratch.
>>>>
>>>> It's not my place to argue about the licensing of RIOT, but I would
>>>> like to see reference code for SUIT that can be used as widley as possible,
>>>> and the licensing of this particular code prevents it from being used for
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Suit mailing list
>>>> Suit@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Suit mailing list
>>>> Suit@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit
>>>>
>>>