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

[Simon Glass]

Hi Sughosh,

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 at 09:35, Sughosh Ganu <sughosh.ganu at linaro.org> wrote:
>
> hi Simon,
>
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 22:50, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sughosh,
> >
> > On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 09:03, 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.
> > >
> > > Could we have a single header file with all the GUIDs, i.e. sandbox, ARM, etc.
> > >
> > > >  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
> > > >
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/binman/test/307_capsule.dts b/tools/binman/test/307_capsule.dts
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000000..86552ff83f
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/tools/binman/test/307_capsule.dts
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > > +
> > > > +/dts-v1/;
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <sandbox_efi_capsule.h>
> > >
> > > We can't include sandbox files in binman! I Does it actually matter
> > > what the GUID value is? Can they all be the same? For now I think it
> > > is best to have
> > >
> > > #define BINMAN_TEST_GUID "xxx"
> > >
> > > repeated at the top of each .dts file. Hopefully at some point we can
> > > figure out a sensible way to provide a decoder ring for this mess, so
> > > we can use actually names in the binman definition instead of GUIDs.
> >
> > Oh, having thought about this a bit more, there is a much better way.
> >
> > In the entry type, allow the image_guid to be a string, like
> > 'binman-test' or 'sandbox-test'. Then binman can have a conversion
> > function to figure out the GUID to pass to the tool, e.g. in
> > efi_capsule.py:
> >
> > TYPE_TO_GUID = {
> >    'binman-test': '09123987987f98712',
> >    'sandbox-test':, '98123987123123987123987',
> > }
> >
> > def get_guid(type_str):
> >     'Get the GUID to use for a particular purpose"""
> >     return TYPE_TO_GUID.get(type_str, type_str)
> >
> > Then you can use these same strings in the sandbox tests, without
> > needing to include anything.
>
> While we can use this method for both sandbox and binman tests, I
> would prefer using the actual GUID strings for the sandbox tests. This
> will serve as an illustrative example to the user for how to pass the
> image GUID value for generating the capsule. For the binman tests, I
> can use this logic to avoid including the header file.

So long as it is easy, that's OK. But how does the user know which GUID to use?

Regards,
Simon