[PATCH v7 08/11] binman: capsule: Add support for generating EFI capsules

[Simon Glass]

Hi Sughosh,

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 12:42, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> hi Simon,
>
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 20:34, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sughosh,
> >
> > On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 05:35, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add support in binman for generating EFI capsules. The capsule
> > > parameters can be specified through the capsule binman entry. Also add
> > > test cases in binman for testing capsule generation.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org>
> > > ---
> > > Changes since V6:
> > > * Add macros for the GUID strings in sandbox_efi_capsule.h
> > > * Highlight that the private and public keys are mandatory for capsule
> > >   signing.
> > > * Add a URL link to the UEFI spec, as used in the rst files.
> > > * Use local vars for private and public keys in BuildSectionData()
> > > * Use local vars for input payload and capsule filenames in
> > >   BuildSectionData().
> > > * Drop the ProcessContents() and SetImagePos() as the superclass
> > >   functions suffice.
> > > * Use GUID macro names in the capsule test dts files.
> > > * Rename efi_capsule_payload.bin to capsule_input.bin.
> > >
> > >
> > >  include/sandbox_efi_capsule.h                 |  14 ++
> >
> > Please move this file to a later patch - see below.
>
> The idea was to also be able to run the binman capsule tests once this
> patch was applied. If we are to move this to a separate patch, it
> should be the one before this patch. But I guess based on your other
> reply, this might not be needed after all.

Yes, it should not be needed if we name the test GUIDs. Remember that
binman is a standalone tool so cannot reference files outside
tools/...although there is no test for that so some things may have
crept in.

>
> >
> > Could we have a single header file with all the GUIDs, i.e. sandbox, ARM, etc.
>
> Umm, I am not too sure. Maybe we can take a call at a later point if
> there are too many files that start cropping up.

OK

>
> >
> > >  tools/binman/entries.rst                      |  62 ++++++++
> > >  tools/binman/etype/efi_capsule.py             | 143 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >  tools/binman/ftest.py                         | 121 +++++++++++++++
> > >  tools/binman/test/307_capsule.dts             |  23 +++
> > >  tools/binman/test/308_capsule_signed.dts      |  25 +++
> > >  tools/binman/test/309_capsule_version.dts     |  24 +++
> > >  tools/binman/test/310_capsule_signed_ver.dts  |  26 ++++
> > >  tools/binman/test/311_capsule_oemflags.dts    |  24 +++
> > >  tools/binman/test/312_capsule_missing_key.dts |  24 +++
> > >  .../binman/test/313_capsule_missing_index.dts |  22 +++
> > >  .../binman/test/314_capsule_missing_guid.dts  |  19 +++
> > >  .../test/315_capsule_missing_payload.dts      |  19 +++
> > >  13 files changed, 546 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 include/sandbox_efi_capsule.h
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/etype/efi_capsule.py
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/307_capsule.dts
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/308_capsule_signed.dts
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/309_capsule_version.dts
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/310_capsule_signed_ver.dts
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/311_capsule_oemflags.dts
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/312_capsule_missing_key.dts
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/313_capsule_missing_index.dts
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/314_capsule_missing_guid.dts
> > >  create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/315_capsule_missing_payload.dts
> > >

[..]

> > > +
> > > +    def ReadNode(self):
> > > +        self.ReadEntries()
> > > +        super().ReadNode()
> >
> > I believe those two lines should be swapped.
>
> Again, like my earlier code for ProcessContents() and SetImagePos(),
> which was taken from mkimage.py as reference, this code is on similar
> lines to what is in intel_ifwi.py. Both these files are authored by
> you, so I took this as reference, especially mkimage.py.

OK, then take a look at mkimage.py and follow that. Yes intel_ifwi is
around the wrong way. Although these days ReadEntries() is called
automatically from entry_Section so you don't need to call it here.

>
> >
> > > +
> > > +        self.image_index = fdt_util.GetInt(self._node, 'image-index')
> > > +        self.image_guid = fdt_util.GetString(self._node, 'image-type-id')
> > > +        self.fw_version = fdt_util.GetInt(self._node, 'fw-version')
> > > +        self.hardware_instance = fdt_util.GetInt(self._node, 'hardware-instance')
> > > +        self.monotonic_count = fdt_util.GetInt(self._node, 'monotonic-count')
> > > +        self.oem_flags = fdt_util.GetInt(self._node, 'oem-flags')
> > > +
> > > +        self.private_key = fdt_util.GetString(self._node, 'private-key')
> > > +        self.public_key_cert = fdt_util.GetString(self._node, 'public-key-cert')
> > > +        if ((self.private_key and not self.public_key_cert) or (self.public_key_cert and not self.private_key)):
> > > +            self.Raise('Both private key and public key certificate need to be provided')
> > > +        elif not (self.private_key and self.public_key_cert):
> > > +            self.auth = 0
> > > +        else:
> > > +            self.auth = 1
> > > +
> > > +    def ReadEntries(self):
> > > +        """Read the subnode to get the payload for this capsule"""
> > > +        # We can have a single payload per capsule
> > > +        if len(self._node.subnodes) == 0:
> > > +            self.Raise('The capsule entry expects at least one subnode for payload')
> >
> > Still need to drop this
>
> ?
> Should we not check if the input payload is missing? We cannot call
> the mkeficapsule tool without an input image(binary).

Why not?

>
> >
> > > +
> > > +        for node in self._node.subnodes:
> > > +            entry = Entry.Create(self, node)
> > > +            entry.ReadNode()
> > > +            self._entries[entry.name] = entry
> >
> > I think you can drop this method, since it should be the same as entry_Sectoin ?
>
> Will check, but again, referenced from mkimage.py.

That one is special since it has to deal with a special 'imagename' node.

Regards,
Simon