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

[Sughosh Ganu]

hi Simon,

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 at 00:35, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

The mkeficapsule tool expects a input binary(image blob as it calls
it) for generation of a normal capsule. Not passing the input image
and the capsule filename to the tool results in the help being
printed.
For e.g. the below command is not passing one filename.

$ ./tools/mkeficapsule -i 0x1 -g 09d7cf52-0720-4710-91d1-08469b7fe9c8
foo.capsule
Usage: mkeficapsule [options] <image blob> <output file>
Options:
-g, --guid <guid string>    guid for image blob type
-i, --index <index>         update image index
-I, --instance <instance>   update hardware instance
-v, --fw-version <version>  firmware version
-p, --private-key <privkey file>  private key file
-c, --certificate <cert file>     signer's certificate file
-m, --monotonic-count <count>     monotonic count
-d, --dump_sig              dump signature (*.p7)
-A, --fw-accept  firmware accept capsule, requires GUID, no image blob
-R, --fw-revert  firmware revert capsule, takes no GUID, no image blob
-o, --capoemflag Capsule OEM Flag, an integer between 0x0000 and 0xffff
-h, --help                  print a help message


So we need an input binary for a normal capsule.

-sughosh

>
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +        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