Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] efi_loader: Avoid using efi_update_capsule() from update capsule on disk

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

Am 1. Februar 2022 16:42:43 MEZ schrieb Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org>:
>hi Masami,
>
>On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 14:03, Masami Hiramatsu
><masami.hiramatsu at linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> The efi_update_capsule() may have to handle the capsule flags as an UEFI
>> runtime and boottime service, but the capsule-on-disk process doesn't.
>> Thus, the capsule-on-disk should use the efi_capsule_update_firmware()
>> directly instead of efi_update_capsule().
>>
>> Suggested-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi at linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu at linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  Changes in v2:
>>   - Fix to pass correct pointer to efi_capsule_update_firmware
>>   - Remove ESRT generation, because this part anyway will be removed
>>     next patch.
>> ---
>>  lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c |    2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c
>> index 4463ae00fd..1ec7ea29ff 100644
>> --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c
>> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c
>> @@ -1118,7 +1118,7 @@ efi_status_t efi_launch_capsules(void)
>>                         index = 0;
>>                 ret = efi_capsule_read_file(files[i], &capsule);
>>                 if (ret == EFI_SUCCESS) {
>> -                       ret = EFI_CALL(efi_update_capsule(&capsule, 1, 0));
>> +                       ret = efi_capsule_update_firmware(capsule);
>
>I believe this is not fixing any issue as such. If so, I would vote
>for keeping the call to efi_update_capsule.

No, this is just about reducing code size by avoiding the EFI_CALL(). It should not change behaviour.

Best regards

Heinrich 

 With the FWU Multi Bank
>feature enabled, the checks for capsule acceptance and revert are
>being done in this function. The reason I have put this code in the
>function is that it caters to both scenarios of capsule-on-disk and
>the runtime functionality. In addition, the FWU bootup checks are also
>done in this function through a call to fwu_update_checks_pass. So if
>this is not a fix, which I don't think it is, I would prefer this call
>to remain.
>
>-sughosh
>
>>                         if (ret != EFI_SUCCESS)
>>                                 log_err("Applying capsule %ls failed\n",
>>                                         files[i]);
>>