On Thu, 2024-10-24 at 10:22 +0100, Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org wrote: > On Thu, 2024-10-24 at 11:55 +0300, Mikko Rapeli wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 07:39:51PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > On Wed, 2024-10-23 at 17:58 +0100, Richard Purdie via > > > lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2024-10-23 at 17:44 +0100, Richard Purdie via > > > > lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2024-10-23 at 15:08 +0300, Mikko Rapeli via > > > > > lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > > > > > These changes enable building systemd uki images which > > > > > > combine > > > > > > kernel, kernel command line, initrd and possibly signatures > > > > > > to > > > > > > a single UEFI binary. This binary can be booted with UEFI > > > > > > firmware > > > > > > and systemd-boot. No grub is needed and UEFI firmware > > > > > > and/or > > > > > > systemd-boot provide possibilities for boot menus. > > > > > > The uki binary can also be signed for UEFI secure boot > > > > > > so the secure boot extends from firmware to kernel and > > > > > > initrd. > > > > > > Binding secure boot to full userspace is then easier since > > > > > > for > > > > > > example > > > > > > kernel command line and initrd contain the support needed > > > > > > to > > > > > > mount > > > > > > encrypted dm-verity etc partitions, and/or create > > > > > > partitions on > > > > > > demand > > > > > > with systemd-repart using device specific TPM devices for > > > > > > encryption. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tested on qemuarm64-secureboot machine from meta-arm with > > > > > > changes > > > > > > to > > > > > > support secure boot. Slightly different configuration > > > > > > tested on > > > > > > multiple arm64 System Ready boards with UEFI firmware, real > > > > > > and > > > > > > firmware > > > > > > based TPM devices. Tested with ovmf firmware on x86_64 with > > > > > > selftests but > > > > > > without secure boot which seems to be harder to setup in > > > > > > ovmf. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sadly I see two wic selftests, > > > > > > wic.Wic2.test_rawcopy_plugin_qemu > > > > > > and > > > > > > wic.Wic2.test_expand_mbr_image, failing when executing all > > > > > > wic > > > > > > selftests > > > > > > on a build machine with zfs filesystem. Will investigate > > > > > > this > > > > > > further. > > > > > > The issue seems to be in mkfs.ext4 producing broken > > > > > > filesystem, > > > > > > and > > > > > > partially > > > > > > in the tests which don't run the correct rootfs file (.ext4 > > > > > > vs > > > > > > .wic). > > > > > > Will debug this further and it is IMO unrelated to these > > > > > > changes > > > > > > since > > > > > > they reproduce on pure master branch without this series. > > > > > > > > > > > > v10: disabled kvm support in new tests since it breaks qemu > > > > > > boot > > > > > > on > > > > > > aarch64 > > > > > > build machine, removed "testimage" from IMAGE_CLASS as > > > > > > well > > > > > > since > > > > > > can end up testing qemu machine during build. > > > > > > > > > > I hate to say this but > > > > > wic.Wic2.test_efi_plugin_plain_systemd_boot_qemu_aarch64 is > > > > > still > > > > > failing: > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://valkyrie.yoctoproject.org/#/builders/23/builds/320/steps/14/logs/stdio > > > > > > and: > > > > > > https://valkyrie.yoctoproject.org/#/builders/23/builds/323/steps/14/logs/stdio > > > > > > which is clearer without the other failure. > > > > Comparing x86_64 and aarch64 build host runqemu command lines from > > wic.Wic2.test_efi_plugin_plain_systemd_boot_qemu_aarch64 selftest, > > two things pop up. > > > > aarch64 still enables KVM via "-enable-kvm". This is despite > > QEMU_USE_KVM = "" > > in the bitbake build config. Oh, this is only applied to the build > > configuration > > and bitbake build command but removed before runqemu is called. I > > can try to apply > > this config also for runqemu. This pattern is used in several > > tests. Build config > > is set temporarily and then removed before calling runqemu. I'll > > send a separate > > patch to master-next to reduce spam. > > > > aarch64 host uses "-cpu host" with qemu while x86_64 sets the CPU > > variant explicitly > > to "-cpu cortex-a76". I can't see from build logs which CPU variant > > the > > host really is. There are a lot of CPU variants in aarch64 world > > and I don't think > > they are all compatible, or detect CPU features at runtime which > > can impact > > things like firmware code badly. I don't know how to fix this. > > Well spotted! I'm running a test build with your patch: > > https://valkyrie.yoctoproject.org/#/builders/23/builds/329
Good news is that one passed, thanks for working through this! Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#206297): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/206297 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/109169005/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
