You can see how quickly this gets complicated. It is why we tried to keep the OSF requirements as simple as possible.
The requirements, in their most basic form, allow owners of systems to modify firmware, install it, and share it. Open source is not required. But for customers to install firmware is very hard in the x86 world nowadays. It's impossible on dell and HPE and many other systems, to name a few. If you modify one bit -- literally one bit -- most modern servers will fail to boot. So going back to your levels: level 0: system cannot evolve or be updated. Level 0 is where we are today. level 1: the system can be updated to a bootable minimal functionality with open community effort.It may lack some features. For instance, you can still look at your TV but lose Netflix 4K because the owners (in OCP sense) cannot get a signed Netflix TA (either updated or not). This is not really appropriate for OCP, and nobody owning a server will want OSF if it means capability is lost. I don't think this is useful for OCP. level 2: the TAs and other binaries can be made available (signed) to the ones maintaining open source firmware projects (TF-A, OP-TEE, U-Boot...). For instance, owners (in the OCP sense) can get the updated Netflix TA binary (updated or not) and sign it for inclusion. This doesn't really fit the x86 world either. level 3: all firmware components are open source and can thus be community maintained. The only system on which this works completely today is IBM Power. Getting back to Open System Firmware: So, to reiterate, Open System Firmware (NOT open source -- open system) is very simple. Owners have to be able to modify, install, and share their modified firmware. Modification and installation require that the vendors sell hardware that allows it. Many x86 vendors can't do this today. Sharing is purely a matter for lawyers, and should be possible. On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 10:38 AM Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 4/8/21 10:46 AM, François Ozog wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 10:30, Loïc Minier <loic.min...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi François-Frédéric, > >> > >> Like you, I'm particularly keen to connect the dots between environmental > >> sustainability and open source software. > >> > >> I love your levels, basically recognizing that if the firmware is not > >> updatable or maintained anymore, or if it can't fulfill its function by > >> running TAs, the whole system might be rendered obsolete. > >> > >> There are two other interesting dimensions I would propose to consider: > >> - resource requirements of the firmware and payloads such as TAs – the > >> firmware/system is rendered obsolete because resources available for the > >> firmware are insufficient, e.g. TAs or binaries grow in size or number or > >> runtime requirements to the point that the device can't function > >> > > I missed that one even though we have a call on this topic today (see on > > trusted-substrate.org) on how to make TA lifecycle much easier, starting > > with Secure DRAM size selection by product maker. There is also an > > ownership transfer discussion that I had with an industrial player that > > would allow formalization of who can change what "downstream" (here > > downstream is relative to software chain that starts with firmware and ends > > with applications) > > > >> - architectural requirements – the firmware or its payloads start > >> requiring recent hardware features or a newer API; this is likely going to > >> bring some tradeoffs in security as the bar keeps getting higher; this > >> could connect to your level 2 > >> > >> Good point. That said, this should not imply an ACPI HAL like effort by > > the firmware. In addition, I remember the Panasonic CTO calling for using > > virtio as a HAL even on non-virtualized environments. Would this be part of > > the picture? > > > >> I'd love to help draft language or with recommendations around this! > >> > >> That would be great: what about you share a Google doc and we discuss it > > here? > > > >> Best, > >> - Loïc Minier > >> > >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 10:12, François Ozog <francois.o...@linaro.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> even though I am not an "ecology activist", sustainability is a topic dear > >>> to me. And it can translate into firmware world... So I am targeting this > >>> message to the audience of the two firmware communities I know and hope it > >>> is okay to do so. > >>> > >>> March 2021 was a big date for Open Source Firmware > >>> <https://www.opencompute.org/projects/open-system-firmware>: that was the > >>> deadline to get > >>> > >>> " > >>> Owners must be able to change firmware and share it -- including any > >>> binary > >>> components -- with other owners. Starting in March, 2021, OCP badging for > >>> servers will require that systems support OSF. > >>> " > >>> > >>> That's a big step towards sustainability in the OCP world. > >>> > >>> More generally, we should have the capacity to characterize firmware > >>> sustainability for post official firmware End Of Life. > >>> > >>> What about the following : > >>> > >>> level 0: system cannot evolve or be updated. > >>> > >>> level 1: the system can be updated to a bootable minimal functionality > >>> with > >>> open community effort.It may lack some features. For instance, you can > >>> still look at your TV but lose Netflix 4K because the owners (in OCP > >>> sense) > >>> cannot get a signed Netflix TA (either updated or not). > >>> > >>> level 2: the TAs and other binaries can be made available (signed) to the > >>> ones maintaining open source firmware projects (TF-A, OP-TEE, U-Boot...). > >>> For instance, owners (in the OCP sense) can get the updated Netflix TA > >>> binary (updated or not) and sign it for inclusion. > > Getting a binary now does not mean that you will get a new compatible > binary in two years after a grave security bug has been discovered in > the WiFi firmware or Netflix uses a new encoding scheme. > > So isn't level 2 still on the path to obsolescence? > > Best regards > > Heinrich > > >>> > >>> level 3: all firmware components are open source and can thus be community > >>> maintained. > >>> > >>> I think : > >>> Level 2 is the right balance between business value and "ecological" goal > >>> of sustainability. > >>> Level 3 is not mandatory and not the ultimate goal. > >>> > >>> Is this a good way to characterize sustainability? > >>> How to make at least level 2 happen ? > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> FF > >>> -- > >>> François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* > >>> T: +33.67221.6485 > >>> francois.o...@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> boot-architecture mailing list > >>> boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org > >>> https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Loïc Minier > >> > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#129): https://OCP-All.groups.io/g/OCP-OSF/message/129 > Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/81937262/1492462 > Group Owner: ocp-osf+ow...@ocp-all.groups.io > Unsubscribe: > https://OCP-All.groups.io/g/OCP-OSF/leave/3416184/1492462/253461219/xyzzy > [rminn...@gmail.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
