[U-Boot] [PATCH v5 10/13] efi: sandbox: Add a simple 'bootefi test' command

[Simon Glass]

Hi Alex,

On 12 June 2018 at 08:11, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>
>
> On 12.06.18 15:48, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> On 12 June 2018 at 02:28, Alexander Graf <agraf at suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12.06.18 07:26, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>> This jumps to test code which can call directly into the EFI support. It
>>>> does not need a separate image so it is easy to write tests with it.
>>>>
>>>> This test can be executed without causing problems to the run-time
>>>> environemnt (e.g. U-Boot does not need to reboot afterwards).
>>>>
>>>> For now the test just outputs a message. To try it:
>>>>
>>>> ./sandbox/u-boot -c "bootefi test"
>>>> U-Boot 2017.09-00204-g696c9855fe (Sep 17 2017 - 16:43:53 -0600)
>>>>
>>>> DRAM:  128 MiB
>>>> MMC:
>>>> Using default environment
>>>>
>>>> In:    serial
>>>> Out:   serial
>>>> Err:   serial
>>>> SCSI:  Net:   No ethernet found.
>>>> IDE:   Bus 0: not available
>>>> Found 0 disks
>>>> WARNING: booting without device tree
>>>> Hello, world!
>>>> Test passed
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>
>>> From Heinrich's comments it sounded like it wouldn't be hard to make the
>>> selftest work. That sounds more appealing to me to be honest :).
>>
>> Yes and in fact my hope was to run the tests automatically as part of
>> 'make tests'
>>
>> But rather than expanding the scope of this series, can we get this in
>> first? Having EFI support in sandbox is a substantial step forward.
>
> I agree that it would be amazing to have it in, I just want to make sure
> we're walking into the right direction. And what I want to have is an
> easy way to execute EFI binaries from user space :).

That's a different thing entirely from the purpose of my series. My
series is designed to allow EFI applications to be *linked* with
sandbox and run just like normal C code, with a full unified stack
trace, etc.

I think this is a very useful feature separate from running EFI
binaries in user space.

>
> Also I don't think that sandbox support is all that far off. Heinrich's
> patch should have resolved compilation, no?

I don't know what it entails but Heinrich says there is a memory
alignment problem to resolve. I was able to repeat his FAT failure but
adding his patch and a few other tweaks.

I'm happy to look at this once we have basic sandbox support
available, but if Heinrich wants to take a look, he is welcome to.

Regards,
Simon