[PATCH 00/10] SMBIOS improvements

[Raymond Mao]

Hi Tom and Heinrich,

On Thu, 19 Sept 2024 at 13:48, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 04:13:02PM +0200, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Sept 2024 at 20:28, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 07:57:19PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > > On 8/26/24 21:59, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 01:12:16PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 at 12:23, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 11:58:54AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi Caleb,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 17:03, Caleb Connolly <
> caleb.connolly at linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As a general comment, this is adding a load of code
> which is used by a
> > > > > > > > > > lot of platforms. As more and more aarch64 platforms are
> created, this
> > > > > > > > > > data grows. Why not use the devicetree for this hardware
> information?
> > > > > > > > > > That is what it is for.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This data does not belong in devicetree, the various
> system registers
> > > > > > > > > exist to describe this information... Putting it in DT
> would be
> > > > > > > > > duplicating it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not wanting to duplicate info which can be read from
> system registers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Using DT for this would additionally require having
> bindings accepted
> > > > > > > > > upstream and for all SoCs to add them. To what end?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To get the correct information in there. How are boards
> supposed to
> > > > > > > > add SMBIOS info? Do we end up creating a whole infra in
> U-Boot just
> > > > > > > > for the driver to read it out? It just doesn't make any
> sense to me...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let's put hardware info in the DT where it belongs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm a little confused here because of some older threads on
> this overall
> > > > > > > topic. Part of the issue here is that in user space,
> "everyone" has
> > > > > > > SMBIOS-based tooling today, and wants to have that work,
> rather than
> > > > > > > inventing new tooling or modify existing tooling. And you were
> concerned
> > > > > > > I thought that we had tied SMBIOS too much to EFI being
> present when
> > > > > > > indeed it should be possible to pass the location along to the
> OS
> > > > > > > without EFI, but at the time Linux at least only supported
> that notion
> > > > > > > on MIPS I think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is a whole other concern I have, that we are perpetuating
> this
> > > > > > legacy format which is a real pain to work with, when we already
> have
> > > > > > devicetree. Let's leave that issue aside as I have not detected
> any
> > > > > > interest in solving that problem, or even any agreement that it
> is a
> > > > > > problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, yes, lets set that aside.
> > > > >
> > > > > > But for this particular series, I am just wanting to get the
> correct
> > > > > > info in there. Having the CPU-detection code provide an opinion
> about
> > > > > > what type of chassis is in use (just to take an example, the
> patch
> > > > > > pieces I highlighted have been dropped from the email I am
> replying
> > > > > > to) just seems a bit daft to me. Only the board vendor would
> know that
> > > > > > info.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I agree the detection should be reworked a good bit as some
> > > > > information will be board design specific while others SoC
> specific. And
> > > > > we should avoid adding many unused at run time strings to all
> platforms
> > > > > that enable this too (looking at all the CPU vendor related stuff).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I doubt on productive machines there will be much use of U-Boot's
> smbios
> > > > command use. It is more a developer tool.
> >
> > Many commands fall into that category.
>
> Yes, there is a trade-off to be made.
>
> > > > For reading all the details we currently have
> > > > lib/efi_loader/smbiosdump.efi which can dump the SMBIOS table to a
> file
> > > > that dmidecode can read.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe instead of adding more and more decoding logic into the U-Boot
> > > > smbios command we should add an smbios sub-command to dump to a file.
> > > > This would be less of a hassle than running an EFI program for the
> same
> > > > purpose.
> > >
> > > Sounds like a good idea to me.
> >
> > I would like to see this series land in U-Boot as I believe it is very
> > helpful for seeing what the table looks like. Dumping to a file which
> > then needs to be decoded is not as convenient. We may also find it
> > easier to add tests for SMBIOS.
>
> And I don't look forward to the seemingly inevitable parsing bug means
> CVE assigned. If the command is broadly enabled then "everyone" gets to
> worry about it, and if it's narrowly enabled have we really gotten
> better than the options of dump to file, parse elsewhere or load a
> parser and run it?
>
> Currently the code for parsing the SMBIOS tables really helps debugging
before
an external parser is ready for use.
I think we can keep it until a dump tool is in the project, at that time we
can just
simply disable the CMD_SMBIOS config for the concern of code size.

Regards,
Raymond