Pull request for efi-2021-10-rc4

Thu Sep 9 12:52:52 CEST 2021

On 9/9/21 10:56 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Heinrich,
>
> On Sat, 4 Sept 2021 at 12:08, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 4. September 2021 19:39:49 MESZ schrieb Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>:
>>> On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 07:03:48PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 4. September 2021 16:37:22 MESZ schrieb Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>:
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 4. September 2021 15:01:11 MESZ schrieb Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>:
>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 11:56:47AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Tom,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following changes since commit 94509b79b13e69c209199af0757afbde8d2ebd6d:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    btrfs: Use default subvolume as filesystem root (2021-09-01 10:11:24
>>>>>>>> -0400)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> are available in the Git repository at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-efi.git
>>>>>>>> tags/efi-2021-10-rc4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for you to fetch changes up to 1dfa494610c5469cc28cf1f8538abf4be6c00324:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    efi_loader: fix efi_tcg2_hash_log_extend_event() parameter check
>>>>>>>> (2021-09-04 09:15:09 +0200)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Pull request for efi-2021-10-rc4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Documentation:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      Remove invalid reference to configuration variable in UEFI doc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> UEFI:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      Parameter checks for the EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL
>>>>>>>>      Improve support of preseeding UEFI variables.
>>>>>>>>      Correct the calculation of the size of loaded images.
>>>>>>>>      Allow for UEFI images with zero VirtualSize
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Heinrich Schuchardt (5):
>>>>>>>>        efi_loader: sections with zero VirtualSize
>>>>>>>>        efi_loader: rounding of image size
>>>>>>>>        efi_loader: don't load signature database from file
>>>>>>>>        efi_loader: efi_auth_var_type for AuditMode, DeployedMode
>>>>>>>>        efi_loader: correct determination of secure boot state
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Masahisa Kojima (3):
>>>>>>>>        efi_loader: add missing parameter check for EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL api
>>>>>>>>        efi_loader: fix boot_service_capability_min calculation
>>>>>>>>        efi_loader: fix efi_tcg2_hash_log_extend_event() parameter check
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I don't see Simon's revert in here either.  And he asked you about
>>>>>>> that yesterday:
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAPnjgZ3eRdjF0jb9S-cJK6y+feuyRyWf0hNkf2triB4DR4UFBQ@mail.gmail.com/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So at this point, are you asserting there is nothing to revert?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never. Simons "revert" is breaking functionality. The concept for suporting blobs in devicetrees supplied by a prior bootstage has not been defined yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> And to be clearer, reverting something that was introduced in one rc in
>>>>> a later rc isn't breaking functionality.  U-Boot releases (well, the
>>>>> non-rc ones for sure) are on a very regular schedule.  External projects
>>>>> may not depend on some feature introduced at -rcN unless they're willing
>>>>> to accept that some changes could happen before release.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no value delivered by Simon's series. Neither does the image get smaller nor does it fix anything. If he wants to enforce a design, it must work for all use cases. But this requires some conceptual work.
>>>
>>> Yes, and what's the rush to not do the conceptual work?  If I recall
>>> part of the thread correctly, yes, Simon didn't get his objections in
>>> before the patches were merged, but it was early enough in the release
>>> cycle that taking a step back and reverting was a reasonable request.
>>> What he had said wouldn't have changed if he had gotten the email out a
>>> few days earlier.
>>>
>>> So yes, please merge Simon's revert, or post and merge new more minimal
>>> revert that brings things to the same functional end.  There are
>>> objections to this implementation, and thus far Simon has been
>>> responding all of the requests to better clarify all of the related code
>>> and concepts that have been asked of him, so that in the end an
>>> implementation that fulfills all of the technical requirements can be
>>> created, that hopefully leaves all parties satisfied.
>>>
>>
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with the current code.
>
> The current code is misconceived and I did go to great effort to
> explain that in the 'devicetree' series.
>
>>
>> It is Simon's concept of blobs in devicetrees that is borked in that it ignores QEMU and any board that gets the DT from a prior boot stage.
>
> That's because I was completely unaware of this strange back-door
> approach. It would have helped a lot if someone had bothered to create

CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE is not a backdoor. And you are the DM maintainer.

> some documentation for the design. Then I would have seen the problem
> immediately.
>
> Anyway, it is now covered by the above series. The use of devicetree
> in U-Boot is very clear, I think.

I see neither a design by you nor a series that covers
CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE. I have suggested that if you really want to move
this blob to a devicetree you could apply an overlay tree including
U-Boot specific fields to the devicetree of the prior stage. Did you yet
respond to this?

>
>>
>> Simon's patches have no functional end. So what do you mean by "same functional end"?
>
> So, please, again, will someone apply the revert before the release
> and people start relying on it.

Sure we want capsule updates. My understanding is that you want to
modify the current implementation. That is fine. It has no effect on the
user where a blob is stored unless you remove it as your series does. So
I cannot understand your urgency. Instead collaborate with Ilias and me
on the possible design change.

Heinrich

>
> Regards,
> Simon
>