Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
Resurrecting..
This continues to be a pain point.
At this point, it seems to me that we have multiple people and platforms in
this community that are complaining about code not following the spec, but the
maintainers are not agreeing because of "legacy implementation of some
unidentified platforms". This is very unfortunate, but if the path forward is
to fork the library, so be it.
I also recently opened an ECR against the UEFI spec to clarify the language in
order to avoid any confusion:
https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3336
Thanks,
--Samer
> -Original Message-
> From: Laszlo Ersek
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 9:26 AM
> To: Pete Batard ; Leif Lindholm ;
> devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud ; Andrei
> Warkentin (awarken...@vmware.com) ; Wang,
> Sunny (HPS SW) ; zhichao@intel.com;
> ray...@intel.com; Ard Biesheuvel ; Andrew
> Fish ; Michael D Kinney ;
> Jian J Wang ; Hao A Wu
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform
> recovery
>
> On 02/17/21 13:18, Pete Batard wrote:
> > Hi Leif,
> >
> > Thanks for trying to resurrect this issue.
> >
> > At this stage, and despite some initial pushback in the bugzilla
> > ticket, I believe we can all agree with the consensus that
> > UefiBootManagerLib is not in fact specs-compliant and therefore needs
> > to be fixed, one way or another, to make it specs-compliant.
> >
> > My take on this is that, rather than propose a new patch, I'd much
> > rather have the current maintainers agree on the course of action to
> > fix the library (which, as Leif suggests, might very well be to split
> > the library into a specs-compliant and non-specs-compliant version),
> > as it would of course be better if the fix came from people who have
> > better understanding of the ramifications we might face with trying to
> > correct the current behaviour, and especially, who have knowledge of
> > the platforms that might be impacted from making the lib specs-compliant.
> >
> > Especially, I don't think that the patch that I originally submitted
> > for this, or the additional proposals we made, are still receivable,
> > as they seem to fall short of fixing the issue in a manner that all
> > platforms can be happy with. And that is why I'd like to hear from the
> > maintainers on what their preferred approach would be.
>
> A new Feature PCD could satisfy both sets of platforms, could it not?
>
> (Sorry if the original patch already had such a PCD; I don't remember.)
>
> Of course then we'd have a debate around the DEC default for the new PCD
> -- I'd say the default value of the PCD should match the spec-mandated
> behavior.
>
> I don't recall any specifics, but a bug-compat pattern that's sometimes used
> is
> this:
>
> if (BugCompatEnabled) {
> //
> // do the right thing in the wrong place, for legacy platforms' sake
> //
>Foo ();
> }
>
> //
> // Do some stuff.
> //
> Bar ();
>
> if (!BugCompatEnabled) {
> //
> // do the right thing in the right place, for conformant platforms
> //
>Foo ();
> }
>
> Not sure if it applies here.
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
>
>
> > On 2021.02.17 11:42, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> >> Hi Pete, +various
> >>
> >> Resurrecting this old thread since Ard pointed out an issue I ran
> >> into myself had already been encountered by Pete.
> >> And the bugzilla ticket (directly below this reply) has had no
> >> relevant progress since August.
> >>
> >> Executive summary:
> >> The current UefiBootManagerLib implementation of the
> PlatformRecovery
> >> path does not notify the EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event.
> >>
> >> The argument has been made that since changing this would affect an
> >> unnamed number of non-public platforms, the behaviour cannot be
> >> changed even though it violates the UEFI specification.
> >>
> >> I disagree with that statement. If we want to fork UefiBootManagerLib
> >> into a BrokenLegacyUefiBootManagerLib and an actually correct one,
> >> and have those platforms move to the BrokenLegacy variant, I'm OK
> >> with that.
> >>
> >> But using the default version should give specification-compliant
> >> behaviour.
> >>
> >> /
> >> Leif
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 18:17:10 +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
> >>> Please note that I have created a bug report
> >>&
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
All,
Please take a moment to add any comments to this UEFI ECR BZ. This is needed to
UEFI Forum can make a decision and close the ECR.
https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3336
Thanks,
--Samer
> -Original Message-
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Samer
> El-Haj-Mahmoud via groups.io
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 3:48 PM
> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; p...@akeo.ie; Laszlo Ersek
> ; Leif Lindholm ; Ni, Ray
> ; zhichao@intel.com
> Cc: Andrei Warkentin (awarken...@vmware.com)
> ; Ard Biesheuvel ;
> Andrew Fish ; Michael D Kinney
> ; Jian J Wang ; Hao A
> Wu ; sunny.hsuanwen.w...@gmail.com; Samer El-
> Haj-Mahmoud ; Sunny Wang
>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform
> recovery
>
> In order to make progress on this, I opened a code-first ECR against the UEFI
> spec to clarify the language around the Boot options processing.
>
> Code First ECR: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3336
>
> Feedback on the proposed language is appreciated. Please provide the
> feedback directly in the BZ above.
>
> I will update the thread/BZ with results from USWG.
>
> Thanks,
> --Samer
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Pete
> > Batard via groups.io
> > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 5:55 AM
> > To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; Laszlo Ersek
> > ; Leif Lindholm ;
> > devel@edk2.groups.io; Ni, Ray ;
> > zhichao@intel.com
> > Cc: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud ; Andrei
> > Warkentin (awarken...@vmware.com) ; Ard
> > Biesheuvel ; Andrew Fish
> ;
> > Michael D Kinney ; Jian J Wang
> > ; Hao A Wu ;
> > sunny.hsuanwen.w...@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> > MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform
> > recovery
> >
> > Hi Sunny,
> >
> > I appreciate the input, but seeing that it is clear that no consensus
> > has been reached with regards to how the specs should be interpreted,
> > and that at least 4 separate people have now indicated that their
> > interpretation is different from the one you are putting forward (i.e.
> > you assert that the current code implementation is specs compliant
> > whereas we assert that the current code implementation is not specs
> > compliant), I believe that any further work on this will have to be
> > conditioned, first, by a specs update, that removes any ambiguity as
> > to the scope in which ReadyToBoot should apply.
> >
> > Until that has happened, it seems very pointless to me to start
> > talking possible code workarounds, because we still can't appear to be
> > in agreement as to whether the current code implementation of
> > ReadyToBoot is specs compliant or not.
> >
> > Now, even as I am the one proposing it, I'm afraid that I am not
> > planning to be the one opening a formal specs update request, since
> > there really is only so much more time I am willing to devote to this
> > matter. But I am hoping somebody else will.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > /Pete
> >
> > On 2021.02.22 09:28, Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > How about we signal ReadyToBoot ONLY for the default platform
> > > recovery
> > option? The default platform recovery option here means the one
> > created by the code below in BdsEntry().
> > >Status = EfiBootManagerInitializeLoadOption (
> > > ,
> > > LoadOptionNumberUnassigned,
> > > LoadOptionTypePlatformRecovery,
> > > LOAD_OPTION_ACTIVE,
> > > L"Default PlatformRecovery",
> > > FilePath,
> > > NULL,
> > > 0
> > > );
> > >
> > > In other words, we just need to slightly update Pete's patch as the
> > following (adding the code below to EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption()):
> > >
> > > + if ((LoadOption->OptionType == LoadOptionTypePlatformRecovery)
> > > + &&
> > >StrCmp (LoadOption ->Description, L"Default
> > > PlatformRecovery")) {
> > > +//
> > > +// Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we are
> about
> > to load and execute the boot option.
> > > +//
> > > +EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot ();
> > >
> > > +//
> > > +// Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled
> > > +//
> >
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
In order to make progress on this, I opened a code-first ECR against the UEFI
spec to clarify the language around the Boot options processing.
Code First ECR: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3336
Feedback on the proposed language is appreciated. Please provide the feedback
directly in the BZ above.
I will update the thread/BZ with results from USWG.
Thanks,
--Samer
> -Original Message-
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Pete
> Batard via groups.io
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 5:55 AM
> To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; Laszlo Ersek
> ; Leif Lindholm ;
> devel@edk2.groups.io; Ni, Ray ; zhichao@intel.com
> Cc: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud ; Andrei
> Warkentin (awarken...@vmware.com) ; Ard
> Biesheuvel ; Andrew Fish ;
> Michael D Kinney ; Jian J Wang
> ; Hao A Wu ;
> sunny.hsuanwen.w...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform
> recovery
>
> Hi Sunny,
>
> I appreciate the input, but seeing that it is clear that no consensus has been
> reached with regards to how the specs should be interpreted, and that at
> least 4 separate people have now indicated that their interpretation is
> different from the one you are putting forward (i.e.
> you assert that the current code implementation is specs compliant whereas
> we assert that the current code implementation is not specs compliant), I
> believe that any further work on this will have to be conditioned, first, by a
> specs update, that removes any ambiguity as to the scope in which
> ReadyToBoot should apply.
>
> Until that has happened, it seems very pointless to me to start talking
> possible code workarounds, because we still can't appear to be in agreement
> as to whether the current code implementation of ReadyToBoot is specs
> compliant or not.
>
> Now, even as I am the one proposing it, I'm afraid that I am not planning to
> be the one opening a formal specs update request, since there really is only
> so much more time I am willing to devote to this matter. But I am hoping
> somebody else will.
>
> Regards,
>
> /Pete
>
> On 2021.02.22 09:28, Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > How about we signal ReadyToBoot ONLY for the default platform recovery
> option? The default platform recovery option here means the one created
> by the code below in BdsEntry().
> >Status = EfiBootManagerInitializeLoadOption (
> > ,
> > LoadOptionNumberUnassigned,
> > LoadOptionTypePlatformRecovery,
> > LOAD_OPTION_ACTIVE,
> > L"Default PlatformRecovery",
> > FilePath,
> > NULL,
> > 0
> > );
> >
> > In other words, we just need to slightly update Pete's patch as the
> following (adding the code below to EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption()):
> >
> > + if ((LoadOption->OptionType == LoadOptionTypePlatformRecovery) &&
> >StrCmp (LoadOption ->Description, L"Default
> > PlatformRecovery")) {
> > +//
> > +// Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we are about
> to load and execute the boot option.
> > +//
> > +EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot ();
> >
> > +//
> > +// Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled
> > +//
> > +REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE,
> > + (EFI_SOFTWARE_DXE_BS_DRIVER |
> > + EFI_SW_DXE_BS_PC_READY_TO_BOOT_EVENT));
> > + }
> >
> > I think the existing platforms that have their platform-specific
> PlatformRecovery option may also do either of the following things to make
> the system have no chance to load the default platform recovery option
> because they do have a better way to recover the boot options:
> > 1. Make their PlatformRecovery option have higher priority than the
> default platform recovery option (has a lower number () than the
> default platform recovery option)
> > 2. Remove the default platform recovery option.
> > Therefore, if we only signal ReadyToBoot for the default platform recovery
> option, this may not affect the existing platforms because the code may
> never be run on these platforms.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If the solution above doesn't work, I think the suggestion (Solution 2:
> adding a new application as a PlatformRecovery) I mentioned, in the
> beginning, can be re-considered. The suggestion (solution 2) is based on the
> thoughts below:
> > 1. I think that processing/evaluating the Boot can be
> > interpreted a
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
application can be implemented without platform specific stuff, so it can be
commonly used by all platforms that need to load a boot image discovered by
using short-form File Path Media Device Path.
Regards,
Sunny Wang
-Original Message-
From: Laszlo Ersek
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 10:26 PM
To: Pete Batard ; Leif Lindholm ;
devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud ; Andrei Warkentin (awarken...@vmware.com)
; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; zhichao@intel.com; ray...@intel.com; Ard
Biesheuvel ; Andrew Fish ; Michael D Kinney
; Jian J Wang ; Hao A Wu
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
On 02/17/21 13:18, Pete Batard wrote:
Hi Leif,
Thanks for trying to resurrect this issue.
At this stage, and despite some initial pushback in the bugzilla
ticket, I believe we can all agree with the consensus that
UefiBootManagerLib is not in fact specs-compliant and therefore needs
to be fixed, one way or another, to make it specs-compliant.
My take on this is that, rather than propose a new patch, I'd much
rather have the current maintainers agree on the course of action to
fix the library (which, as Leif suggests, might very well be to split
the library into a specs-compliant and non-specs-compliant version),
as it would of course be better if the fix came from people who have
better understanding of the ramifications we might face with trying to
correct the current behaviour, and especially, who have knowledge of
the platforms that might be impacted from making the lib specs-compliant.
Especially, I don't think that the patch that I originally submitted
for this, or the additional proposals we made, are still receivable,
as they seem to fall short of fixing the issue in a manner that all
platforms can be happy with. And that is why I'd like to hear from the
maintainers on what their preferred approach would be.
A new Feature PCD could satisfy both sets of platforms, could it not?
(Sorry if the original patch already had such a PCD; I don't remember.)
Of course then we'd have a debate around the DEC default for the new PCD
-- I'd say the default value of the PCD should match the spec-mandated behavior.
I don't recall any specifics, but a bug-compat pattern that's sometimes used is
this:
if (BugCompatEnabled) {
//
// do the right thing in the wrong place, for legacy platforms' sake
//
Foo ();
}
//
// Do some stuff.
//
Bar ();
if (!BugCompatEnabled) {
//
// do the right thing in the right place, for conformant platforms
//
Foo ();
}
Not sure if it applies here.
Thanks
Laszlo
On 2021.02.17 11:42, Leif Lindholm wrote:
Hi Pete, +various
Resurrecting this old thread since Ard pointed out an issue I ran
into myself had already been encountered by Pete.
And the bugzilla ticket (directly below this reply) has had no
relevant progress since August.
Executive summary:
The current UefiBootManagerLib implementation of the PlatformRecovery
path does not notify the EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event.
The argument has been made that since changing this would affect an
unnamed number of non-public platforms, the behaviour cannot be
changed even though it violates the UEFI specification.
I disagree with that statement. If we want to fork UefiBootManagerLib
into a BrokenLegacyUefiBootManagerLib and an actually correct one,
and have those platforms move to the BrokenLegacy variant, I'm OK
with that.
But using the default version should give specification-compliant
behaviour.
/
Leif
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 18:17:10 +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
Please note that I have created a bug report
(https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2831) to address the
non-compliance issue was raised during the course of the discussion
below.
Regards,
/Pete
On 2020.06.17 18:06, Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud wrote:
I worked with Pete offline on this..
This code seems to be violating the UEFI Spec:
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/a56af23f066e2816c67b7c6e64de
7ddefcd70780/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmBoot.c#L1763
//
// 3. Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we are
about to load and execute
// the boot option.
//
if (BmIsBootManagerMenuFilePath (BootOption->FilePath)) {
DEBUG ((EFI_D_INFO, "[Bds] Booting Boot Manager Menu.\n"));
BmStopHotkeyService (NULL, NULL);
} else {
EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot();
//
// Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled
//
REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE,
(EFI_SOFTWARE_DXE_BS_DRIVER |
EFI_SW_DXE_BS_PC_READY_TO_BOOT_EVENT));
//
// 4. Repair system through DriverHealth protocol
//
BmRepairAllControllers (0);
}
The UEFI Spec section 3.1.7 clearly states that Boot Options (and
their FilePathList) *shall not* be evaluated prior to the
completion of
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
Hi all,
How about we signal ReadyToBoot ONLY for the default platform recovery option?
The default platform recovery option here means the one created by the code
below in BdsEntry().
Status = EfiBootManagerInitializeLoadOption (
,
LoadOptionNumberUnassigned,
LoadOptionTypePlatformRecovery,
LOAD_OPTION_ACTIVE,
L"Default PlatformRecovery",
FilePath,
NULL,
0
);
In other words, we just need to slightly update Pete's patch as the following
(adding the code below to EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption()):
+ if ((LoadOption->OptionType == LoadOptionTypePlatformRecovery) &&
StrCmp (LoadOption ->Description, L"Default PlatformRecovery")) {
+//
+// Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we are about to load and
execute the boot option.
+//
+EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot ();
+//
+// Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled
+//
+REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE, (EFI_SOFTWARE_DXE_BS_DRIVER |
EFI_SW_DXE_BS_PC_READY_TO_BOOT_EVENT));
+ }
I think the existing platforms that have their platform-specific
PlatformRecovery option may also do either of the following things to make the
system have no chance to load the default platform recovery option because they
do have a better way to recover the boot options:
1. Make their PlatformRecovery option have higher priority than the default
platform recovery option (has a lower number () than the default platform
recovery option)
2. Remove the default platform recovery option.
Therefore, if we only signal ReadyToBoot for the default platform recovery
option, this may not affect the existing platforms because the code may never
be run on these platforms.
If the solution above doesn't work, I think the suggestion (Solution 2: adding
a new application as a PlatformRecovery) I mentioned, in the beginning, can
be re-considered. The suggestion (solution 2) is based on the thoughts below:
1. I think that processing/evaluating the Boot can be interpreted as
the code after the comment " 6. Load EFI boot option to ImageHandle" in
EfiBootManagerBoot() because these code are similar to the code in
EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption(). Based on this, I think our current
implementation is compliant with the description below in the UEFI spec. Of
course, we can improve our implementation by moving the code for
processing/evaluating the Boot from EfiBootManagerBoot() to
EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption() and make EfiBootManagerBoot() call
EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption().
“After all SysPrep variables have been launched and exited,
the platform shall notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group and begin
to evaluate Boot variables with Attributes set to LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT
according to the order defined by BootOrder. The FilePathList of variables
marked LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall not be evaluated prior to the completion
of EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group processing."
2. Moreover, it looks like we want to process PlatformRecovery option
in the same way as Boot (do more things like setting BootCurrent for
PlatformRecovery). If so, I would still prefer to do what I suggest in the
beginning to create a new application as a new PlatformRecovery option for
generating and launching a boot option for the bootable image that is found by
using a short-form File Path Media Device Path so that we won't run into other
difficulties. At least, I already saw the difficulty of no connection between
BootCurrent variable and PlatformRecovery variable. Of course, this
application can be implemented without platform specific stuff, so it can be
commonly used by all platforms that need to load a boot image discovered by
using short-form File Path Media Device Path.
Regards,
Sunny Wang
-Original Message-
From: Laszlo Ersek
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 10:26 PM
To: Pete Batard ; Leif Lindholm ;
devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud ; Andrei Warkentin
(awarken...@vmware.com) ; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW)
; zhichao@intel.com; ray...@intel.com; Ard Biesheuvel
; Andrew Fish ; Michael D Kinney
; Jian J Wang ; Hao A Wu
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
On 02/17/21 13:18, Pete Batard wrote:
> Hi Leif,
>
> Thanks for trying to resurrect this issue.
>
> At this stage, and despite some initial pushback in the bugzilla
> ticket, I believe we can all agree with the consensus that
> UefiBootManagerLib is not in fact specs-compliant and therefore needs
> to be fixed, one way or another, to make it specs-compliant.
>
> My take on this is that, rather than propose a new patch
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
gt;> BmRepairAllControllers (0); >>>> } >>>> >>>> The UEFI Spec section 3.1.7 clearly states that Boot Options (and >>>> their FilePathList) *shall not* be evaluated prior to the completion >>>> of EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group processing: >>>> >>>> "After all SysPrep variables have been launched and exited, the >>>> platform shall notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group and >>>> begin to evaluate Boot variables with Attributes set to >>>> LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT according to the order defined by >>>> BootOrder. The FilePathList of variables marked >>>> LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall not be evaluated prior to the >>>> completion of EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group processing." >>>> >>>> This is a prescriptive language that is stronger than the language >>>> in section 7.1 which defines the ReadyToBoot event group in a >>>> general way: >>>> >>>> "EFI_EVENT_GROUP_RESET_SYSTEM >>>> This event group is notified by the system when ResetSystem() is >>>> invoked and the system is about to be reset. The event group is only >>>> notified prior to ExitBootServices() invocation." >>>> >>>> The EDK2 code in the else block above (to call >>>> EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot() ) need to move before the code that is >>>> processing BootOption->FilePath. In fact, why is this signaling even >>>> a BootManager task? It should be a higher level BDS task (after >>>> processing SysPrp and before processing Boot options, per the spec). >>>> This would be somewhere around >>>> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/b15646484eaffcf7cc464fdea0214498f26addc2/MdeModulePkg/Universal/BdsDxe/BdsEntry.c#L1007 >>>> where SysPrep is processed. >>>> >>>> This should also take care of the issue Pete reported in this >>>> thread, without the need for explicitly signaling ReadyToBoot from >>>> PlatformRecovery (or changing the UEFI spec). >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> --Samer >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Samer >>>> El-Haj-Mahmoud via groups.io >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:42 PM >>>> To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Andrei Warkentin (awarken...@vmware.com) >>>> ; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; >>>> p...@akeo.ie >>>> Cc: zhichao@intel.com; ray...@intel.com; Ard Biesheuvel >>>> ; l...@nuviainc.com; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] >>>> MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform >>>> recovery >>>> >>>> The UEFI spec (3.1.7) says: >>>> >>>> "After all SysPrep#### variables have been launched and exited, the >>>> platform shall notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group and >>>> begin to evaluate Boot variables with Attributes set to >>>> LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT according to the order defined by >>>> BootOrder. The FilePathList of variables marked >>>> LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall not be evaluated prior to the >>>> completion of EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group processing." >>>> >>>> The way I read this, I expect ReadyToBoot to be signaled after >>>> SysPrep (if any) are processed, but before Boot are >>>> processed. Is my understanding correct that this language implies >>>> ReadyToBoot need to be signaled even if BootOrder does not contain >>>> any Boot options marked as LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT? And if so, >>>> is EDK2 not doing this, which leads us to this patch (signaling it >>>> in PlatformRecovery?) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> On >>>> Behalf Of Andrei Warkentin via groups.io >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:37 PM >>>> To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <mailto:sunnyw...@hpe.com>; >>>> mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io; mailto:p...@akeo.ie >>>> Cc: mailto:zhichao@intel.com; mailto:ray...@intel.com; Ard >>>> Biesheuvel <mailto:ard.biesheu...@arm.com>; mailto:l...@nuviainc.com >>>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] >>>> MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform >>>&g
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
xplicitly signaling ReadyToBoot from PlatformRecovery (or changing the UEFI spec). Thanks, --Samer From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud via groups.io Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:42 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Andrei Warkentin (awarken...@vmware.com) ; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; p...@akeo.ie Cc: zhichao@intel.com; ray...@intel.com; Ard Biesheuvel ; l...@nuviainc.com; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery The UEFI spec (3.1.7) says: "After all SysPrep variables have been launched and exited, the platform shall notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group and begin to evaluate Boot variables with Attributes set to LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT according to the order defined by BootOrder. The FilePathList of variables marked LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall not be evaluated prior to the completion of EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group processing." The way I read this, I expect ReadyToBoot to be signaled after SysPrep (if any) are processed, but before Boot are processed. Is my understanding correct that this language implies ReadyToBoot need to be signaled even if BootOrder does not contain any Boot options marked as LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT? And if so, is EDK2 not doing this, which leads us to this patch (signaling it in PlatformRecovery?) From: mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Andrei Warkentin via groups.io Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:37 PM To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <mailto:sunnyw...@hpe.com>; mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io; mailto:p...@akeo.ie Cc: mailto:zhichao@intel.com; mailto:ray...@intel.com; Ard Biesheuvel <mailto:ard.biesheu...@arm.com>; mailto:l...@nuviainc.com Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery Thanks Pete. I think the question I have, that I hope Tiano veterans can chime in, is whether we are doing the right thing, or if we should be overriding the boot mode? I.e. is it normal that we boot up in recovery until options are saved? A From: mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> on behalf of Pete Batard via groups.io <mailto:pete=akeo...@groups.io> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 11:34 AM To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <mailto:sunnyw...@hpe.com>; mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> Cc: mailto:zhichao@intel.com <mailto:zhichao@intel.com>; mailto:ray...@intel.com <mailto:ray...@intel.com>; mailto:ard.biesheu...@arm.com <mailto:ard.biesheu...@arm.com>; mailto:l...@nuviainc.com <mailto:l...@nuviainc.com> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery On 2020.06.17 14:04, Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) wrote: Thanks for checking my comments, Pete. Or is the "one more" the issue, meaning that it would get signaled more than once? [Sunny] Yeah, it would get signaled more than once if the PlatformRecovery option (a UEFI application) calls EfiBootManagerBoot() to launch the recovered boot option inside of the application. Okay. One element that I'm going to point out is that, with the current EDK2 code (i.e. without this proposal applied), and after a user goes into the setup to save their boot options in order for regular boot options to get executed instead of PlaformRecovery, the OnReadyToBoot event is actually called twice. So my understanding is that, while we of course want to avoid this and any patch proposal should actively try to prevent it, it seems we already have behaviour in EDK2 that can lead to OnReadyToBoot being signalled more than once. At least the current Pi 4 platform does demonstrate this behaviour. For instance, if you run DEBUG, you will see two instances of: RemoveDtStdoutPath: could not retrieve DT blob - Not Found which is a one-instance message generated from the ConsolePrefDxe's OnReadyToBoot() call. I've also confirmed more specifically that OnReadyToBoot() is indeed called twice. I don't recall us doing much of any special with regards to boot options for the Pi platform, so my guess is that it's probably not the only platform where OnReadyToBoot might be signalled more than once, and that this might be tied to a default EDK2 behaviour. Therefore I don't see having a repeated event as a major deal breaker (though, again, if we can avoid that, we of course will want to). I don't mind trying an alternative approach, but I don't understand how what you describe would help. Can you please be more specific about what you have in mind? [Sunny] Sure. I added more information below. If it is still not clear enough, feel free to let me know. 1. Create a UEFI application with the code to signal ReadyToBoot a
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
Hi Pete, +various
Resurrecting this old thread since Ard pointed out an issue I ran into
myself had already been encountered by Pete.
And the bugzilla ticket (directly below this reply) has had no
relevant progress since August.
Executive summary:
The current UefiBootManagerLib implementation of the PlatformRecovery
path does not notify the EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event.
The argument has been made that since changing this would affect an
unnamed number of non-public platforms, the behaviour cannot be
changed even though it violates the UEFI specification.
I disagree with that statement. If we want to fork UefiBootManagerLib
into a BrokenLegacyUefiBootManagerLib and an actually correct one, and
have those platforms move to the BrokenLegacy variant, I'm OK with
that.
But using the default version should give specification-compliant
behaviour.
/
Leif
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 18:17:10 +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
> Please note that I have created a bug report
> (https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2831) to address the
> non-compliance issue was raised during the course of the discussion below.
>
> Regards,
>
> /Pete
>
>
> On 2020.06.17 18:06, Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud wrote:
> > I worked with Pete offline on this..
> >
> > This code seems to be violating the UEFI Spec:
> >
> > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/a56af23f066e2816c67b7c6e64de7ddefcd70780/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmBoot.c#L1763
> >
> >//
> >// 3. Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we are about to
> > load and execute
> >//the boot option.
> >//
> >if (BmIsBootManagerMenuFilePath (BootOption->FilePath)) {
> > DEBUG ((EFI_D_INFO, "[Bds] Booting Boot Manager Menu.\n"));
> > BmStopHotkeyService (NULL, NULL);
> >} else {
> > EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot();
> > //
> > // Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled
> > //
> > REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE, (EFI_SOFTWARE_DXE_BS_DRIVER |
> > EFI_SW_DXE_BS_PC_READY_TO_BOOT_EVENT));
> > //
> > // 4. Repair system through DriverHealth protocol
> > //
> > BmRepairAllControllers (0);
> >}
> >
> > The UEFI Spec section 3.1.7 clearly states that Boot Options (and their
> > FilePathList) *shall not* be evaluated prior to the completion of
> > EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group processing:
> >
> > "After all SysPrep variables have been launched and exited, the
> > platform shall notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group and begin
> > to evaluate Boot variables with Attributes set to
> > LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT according to the order defined by BootOrder. The
> > FilePathList of variables marked LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall not be
> > evaluated prior to the completion of EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event
> > group processing."
> >
> > This is a prescriptive language that is stronger than the language in
> > section 7.1 which defines the ReadyToBoot event group in a general way:
> >
> > "EFI_EVENT_GROUP_RESET_SYSTEM
> > This event group is notified by the system when ResetSystem() is invoked
> > and the system is about to be reset. The event group is only notified prior
> > to ExitBootServices() invocation."
> >
> > The EDK2 code in the else block above (to call EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot()
> > ) need to move before the code that is processing BootOption->FilePath. In
> > fact, why is this signaling even a BootManager task? It should be a higher
> > level BDS task (after processing SysPrp and before processing Boot options,
> > per the spec). This would be somewhere around
> > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/b15646484eaffcf7cc464fdea0214498f26addc2/MdeModulePkg/Universal/BdsDxe/BdsEntry.c#L1007
> > where SysPrep is processed.
> >
> > This should also take care of the issue Pete reported in this thread,
> > without the need for explicitly signaling ReadyToBoot from PlatformRecovery
> > (or changing the UEFI spec).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Samer
> >
> >
> >
> > From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Samer
> > El-Haj-Mahmoud via groups.io
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:42 PM
> > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Andrei Warkentin (awarken...@vmware.com)
> > ; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ;
> > p...@akeo.ie
> > Cc: zhichao@intel.com; ray...@intel.com; Ard Biesheuvel
> > ; l...@nuviainc.com; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
> >
> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> > MdeM
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
Please note that I have created a bug report
(https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2831) to address the
non-compliance issue was raised during the course of the discussion below.
Regards,
/Pete
On 2020.06.17 18:06, Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud wrote:
I worked with Pete offline on this..
This code seems to be violating the UEFI Spec:
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/a56af23f066e2816c67b7c6e64de7ddefcd70780/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmBoot.c#L1763
//
// 3. Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we are about to load
and execute
//the boot option.
//
if (BmIsBootManagerMenuFilePath (BootOption->FilePath)) {
DEBUG ((EFI_D_INFO, "[Bds] Booting Boot Manager Menu.\n"));
BmStopHotkeyService (NULL, NULL);
} else {
EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot();
//
// Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled
//
REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE, (EFI_SOFTWARE_DXE_BS_DRIVER |
EFI_SW_DXE_BS_PC_READY_TO_BOOT_EVENT));
//
// 4. Repair system through DriverHealth protocol
//
BmRepairAllControllers (0);
}
The UEFI Spec section 3.1.7 clearly states that Boot Options (and their
FilePathList) *shall not* be evaluated prior to the completion of
EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group processing:
"After all SysPrep variables have been launched and exited, the platform shall
notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group and begin to evaluate Boot variables
with Attributes set to LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT according to the order defined by
BootOrder. The FilePathList of variables marked LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall not be
evaluated prior to the completion of EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group
processing."
This is a prescriptive language that is stronger than the language in section
7.1 which defines the ReadyToBoot event group in a general way:
"EFI_EVENT_GROUP_RESET_SYSTEM
This event group is notified by the system when ResetSystem() is invoked and the
system is about to be reset. The event group is only notified prior to
ExitBootServices() invocation."
The EDK2 code in the else block above (to call EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot() ) need
to move before the code that is processing BootOption->FilePath. In fact, why
is this signaling even a BootManager task? It should be a higher level BDS task
(after processing SysPrp and before processing Boot options, per the spec). This
would be somewhere around
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/b15646484eaffcf7cc464fdea0214498f26addc2/MdeModulePkg/Universal/BdsDxe/BdsEntry.c#L1007
where SysPrep is processed.
This should also take care of the issue Pete reported in this thread, without
the need for explicitly signaling ReadyToBoot from PlatformRecovery (or
changing the UEFI spec).
Thanks,
--Samer
From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Samer
El-Haj-Mahmoud via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:42 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Andrei Warkentin (awarken...@vmware.com)
; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; p...@akeo.ie
Cc: zhichao@intel.com; ray...@intel.com; Ard Biesheuvel ;
l...@nuviainc.com; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib:
Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
The UEFI spec (3.1.7) says:
"After all SysPrep variables have been launched and exited, the platform shall
notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group and begin to evaluate Boot variables
with Attributes set to LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT according to the order defined by
BootOrder. The FilePathList of variables marked LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall not be
evaluated prior to the completion of EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group
processing."
The way I read this, I expect ReadyToBoot to be signaled after SysPrep (if
any) are processed, but before Boot are processed. Is my understanding
correct that this language implies ReadyToBoot need to be signaled even if
BootOrder does not contain any Boot options marked as
LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT? And if so, is EDK2 not doing this, which leads us to
this patch (signaling it in PlatformRecovery?)
From: mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of
Andrei Warkentin via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:37 PM
To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <mailto:sunnyw...@hpe.com>;
mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io; mailto:p...@akeo.ie
Cc: mailto:zhichao@intel.com; mailto:ray...@intel.com; Ard Biesheuvel
<mailto:ard.biesheu...@arm.com>; mailto:l...@nuviainc.com
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib:
Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
Thanks Pete.
I think the question I have, that I hope Tiano veterans can chime in, is
whether we are doing the right thing, or if we should be overriding the boot
mode? I.e. is it normal that we boot up in recovery until options are saved?
A
__
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
I worked with Pete offline on this..
This code seems to be violating the UEFI Spec:
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/a56af23f066e2816c67b7c6e64de7ddefcd70780/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmBoot.c#L1763
//
// 3. Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we are about to load and
execute
//the boot option.
//
if (BmIsBootManagerMenuFilePath (BootOption->FilePath)) {
DEBUG ((EFI_D_INFO, "[Bds] Booting Boot Manager Menu.\n"));
BmStopHotkeyService (NULL, NULL);
} else {
EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot();
//
// Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled
//
REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE, (EFI_SOFTWARE_DXE_BS_DRIVER |
EFI_SW_DXE_BS_PC_READY_TO_BOOT_EVENT));
//
// 4. Repair system through DriverHealth protocol
//
BmRepairAllControllers (0);
}
The UEFI Spec section 3.1.7 clearly states that Boot Options (and their
FilePathList) *shall not* be evaluated prior to the completion of
EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group processing:
"After all SysPrep variables have been launched and exited, the platform
shall notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group and begin to evaluate
Boot variables with Attributes set to LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT according
to the order defined by BootOrder. The FilePathList of variables marked
LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall not be evaluated prior to the completion of
EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group processing."
This is a prescriptive language that is stronger than the language in section
7.1 which defines the ReadyToBoot event group in a general way:
"EFI_EVENT_GROUP_RESET_SYSTEM
This event group is notified by the system when ResetSystem() is invoked and
the system is about to be reset. The event group is only notified prior to
ExitBootServices() invocation."
The EDK2 code in the else block above (to call EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot() )
need to move before the code that is processing BootOption->FilePath. In fact,
why is this signaling even a BootManager task? It should be a higher level BDS
task (after processing SysPrp and before processing Boot options, per the
spec). This would be somewhere around
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/b15646484eaffcf7cc464fdea0214498f26addc2/MdeModulePkg/Universal/BdsDxe/BdsEntry.c#L1007
where SysPrep is processed.
This should also take care of the issue Pete reported in this thread, without
the need for explicitly signaling ReadyToBoot from PlatformRecovery (or
changing the UEFI spec).
Thanks,
--Samer
From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Samer
El-Haj-Mahmoud via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:42 PM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Andrei Warkentin (awarken...@vmware.com)
; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; p...@akeo.ie
Cc: zhichao@intel.com; ray...@intel.com; Ard Biesheuvel
; l...@nuviainc.com; Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib:
Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
The UEFI spec (3.1.7) says:
"After all SysPrep variables have been launched and exited, the platform
shall notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group and begin to evaluate
Boot variables with Attributes set to LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT according
to the order defined by BootOrder. The FilePathList of variables marked
LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall not be evaluated prior to the completion of
EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group processing."
The way I read this, I expect ReadyToBoot to be signaled after SysPrep (if
any) are processed, but before Boot are processed. Is my understanding
correct that this language implies ReadyToBoot need to be signaled even if
BootOrder does not contain any Boot options marked as
LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT? And if so, is EDK2 not doing this, which leads us to
this patch (signaling it in PlatformRecovery?)
From: mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of
Andrei Warkentin via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:37 PM
To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <mailto:sunnyw...@hpe.com>;
mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io; mailto:p...@akeo.ie
Cc: mailto:zhichao@intel.com; mailto:ray...@intel.com; Ard Biesheuvel
<mailto:ard.biesheu...@arm.com>; mailto:l...@nuviainc.com
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib:
Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
Thanks Pete.
I think the question I have, that I hope Tiano veterans can chime in, is
whether we are doing the right thing, or if we should be overriding the boot
mode? I.e. is it normal that we boot up in recovery until options are saved?
A
From: mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> on behalf of
Pete Batard via groups.io <mailto:pete=akeo...@groups.io>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 11:34 AM
To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <mailto:sunnyw...@hpe.com&
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
On 2020.06.17 17:36, Andrei Warkentin wrote: Thanks Pete. I think the question I have, that I hope Tiano veterans can chime in, is whether we are doing the right thing, or if we should be overriding the boot mode? I.e. is it normal that we boot up in recovery until options are saved? Yes, that's the other part of the problem, that I didn't want to bring in because it's Pi-platform specific and I still see OnReadyToBoot as an event we logically want to signal during Platform Recovery. Still, that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to have feedback on this too. Regards, /Pete A *From:* devel@edk2.groups.io on behalf of Pete Batard via groups.io *Sent:* Wednesday, June 17, 2020 11:34 AM *To:* Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; devel@edk2.groups.io *Cc:* zhichao@intel.com ; ray...@intel.com ; ard.biesheu...@arm.com ; l...@nuviainc.com *Subject:* Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery On 2020.06.17 14:04, Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) wrote: Thanks for checking my comments, Pete. Or is the "one more" the issue, meaning that it would get signaled more than once? [Sunny] Yeah, it would get signaled more than once if the PlatformRecovery option (a UEFI application) calls EfiBootManagerBoot() to launch the recovered boot option inside of the application. Okay. One element that I'm going to point out is that, with the current EDK2 code (i.e. without this proposal applied), and after a user goes into the setup to save their boot options in order for regular boot options to get executed instead of PlaformRecovery, the OnReadyToBoot event is actually called twice. So my understanding is that, while we of course want to avoid this and any patch proposal should actively try to prevent it, it seems we already have behaviour in EDK2 that can lead to OnReadyToBoot being signalled more than once. At least the current Pi 4 platform does demonstrate this behaviour. For instance, if you run DEBUG, you will see two instances of: RemoveDtStdoutPath: could not retrieve DT blob - Not Found which is a one-instance message generated from the ConsolePrefDxe's OnReadyToBoot() call. I've also confirmed more specifically that OnReadyToBoot() is indeed called twice. I don't recall us doing much of any special with regards to boot options for the Pi platform, so my guess is that it's probably not the only platform where OnReadyToBoot might be signalled more than once, and that this might be tied to a default EDK2 behaviour. Therefore I don't see having a repeated event as a major deal breaker (though, again, if we can avoid that, we of course will want to). I don't mind trying an alternative approach, but I don't understand how what you describe would help. Can you please be more specific about what you have in mind? [Sunny] Sure. I added more information below. If it is still not clear enough, feel free to let me know. 1. Create a UEFI application with the code to signal ReadyToBoot and pick /efi/boot/bootaa64.efi from either SD or USB and run it. So that would basically be adding code that duplicates, in part, what Platform Recovery already does. I have to be honest: Even outside of the extra work this would require, I don't really like the idea of having to write our own application, as it will introduce new possible points of failures and require extra maintenance (especially as we will want to be able to handle network boot and other options, and before long, I fear that we're going to have to write our own Pi specific boot manager). Doing so simply because the current Platform Recovery, which does suit our needs otherwise, is not designed to call ReadyToBoot does not seem like the best course of action in my book. Instead, I still logically believe that any option that calls a boot loader should signal ReadyToBoot, regardless of whether it was launched from Boot Manager or Platform Recovery, and that it shouldn't be left to each platform to work around that. Of course, I understand that this would require a specs change, and that it also may have ramifications for existing platforms that interpret the current specs pedantically. But to me, regardless of what the specs appear to be limiting it to right now, the logic of a "ReadyToBoot" event is that it should be signalled whenever a bootloader is about to be executed, rather than only when a bootloader happened to be launched through a formal Boot Manager option. I would therefore appreciate if other people could weigh in on this matter, to see if I'm the only one who believes that we could ultimately have more to gain from signalling ReadyToBoot with PlatformRecovery options than leaving things as they stand right now... 2. Then, call EfiBootManagerInitializeLoadOption like the following in a DXE driver or other places before "Default PlatformRecovery&
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
The UEFI spec (3.1.7) says: "After all SysPrep variables have been launched and exited, the platform shall notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group and begin to evaluate Boot variables with Attributes set to LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT according to the order defined by BootOrder. The FilePathList of variables marked LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall not be evaluated prior to the completion of EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group processing." The way I read this, I expect ReadyToBoot to be signaled after SysPrep (if any) are processed, but before Boot are processed. Is my understanding correct that this language implies ReadyToBoot need to be signaled even if BootOrder does not contain any Boot options marked as LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT? And if so, is EDK2 not doing this, which leads us to this patch (signaling it in PlatformRecovery?) From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Andrei Warkentin via groups.io Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:37 PM To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; devel@edk2.groups.io; p...@akeo.ie Cc: zhichao@intel.com; ray...@intel.com; Ard Biesheuvel ; l...@nuviainc.com Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery Thanks Pete. I think the question I have, that I hope Tiano veterans can chime in, is whether we are doing the right thing, or if we should be overriding the boot mode? I.e. is it normal that we boot up in recovery until options are saved? A From: devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>> on behalf of Pete Batard via groups.io mailto:pete=akeo...@groups.io>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 11:34 AM To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) mailto:sunnyw...@hpe.com>>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io> mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>> Cc: zhichao@intel.com<mailto:zhichao@intel.com> mailto:zhichao@intel.com>>; ray...@intel.com<mailto:ray...@intel.com> mailto:ray...@intel.com>>; ard.biesheu...@arm.com<mailto:ard.biesheu...@arm.com> mailto:ard.biesheu...@arm.com>>; l...@nuviainc.com<mailto:l...@nuviainc.com> mailto:l...@nuviainc.com>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery On 2020.06.17 14:04, Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) wrote: > Thanks for checking my comments, Pete. > >> Or is the "one more" the issue, meaning that it would get signaled more than >> once? > [Sunny] Yeah, it would get signaled more than once if the PlatformRecovery > option (a UEFI application) calls EfiBootManagerBoot() to launch the > recovered boot option inside of the application. Okay. One element that I'm going to point out is that, with the current EDK2 code (i.e. without this proposal applied), and after a user goes into the setup to save their boot options in order for regular boot options to get executed instead of PlaformRecovery, the OnReadyToBoot event is actually called twice. So my understanding is that, while we of course want to avoid this and any patch proposal should actively try to prevent it, it seems we already have behaviour in EDK2 that can lead to OnReadyToBoot being signalled more than once. At least the current Pi 4 platform does demonstrate this behaviour. For instance, if you run DEBUG, you will see two instances of: RemoveDtStdoutPath: could not retrieve DT blob - Not Found which is a one-instance message generated from the ConsolePrefDxe's OnReadyToBoot() call. I've also confirmed more specifically that OnReadyToBoot() is indeed called twice. I don't recall us doing much of any special with regards to boot options for the Pi platform, so my guess is that it's probably not the only platform where OnReadyToBoot might be signalled more than once, and that this might be tied to a default EDK2 behaviour. Therefore I don't see having a repeated event as a major deal breaker (though, again, if we can avoid that, we of course will want to). >> I don't mind trying an alternative approach, but I don't understand how what >> you describe would help. Can you please be more specific about what you have >> in mind? > [Sunny] Sure. I added more information below. If it is still not clear > enough, feel free to let me know. > 1. Create a UEFI application with the code to signal ReadyToBoot and > pick /efi/boot/bootaa64.efi from either SD or USB and run it. So that would basically be adding code that duplicates, in part, what Platform Recovery already does. I have to be honest: Even outside of the extra work this would require, I don't really like the idea of having to write our own application, as it will introduce new possible points of failures and require extra maintenance (especially as we will want to be able to handle network
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
Thanks Pete. I think the question I have, that I hope Tiano veterans can chime in, is whether we are doing the right thing, or if we should be overriding the boot mode? I.e. is it normal that we boot up in recovery until options are saved? A From: devel@edk2.groups.io on behalf of Pete Batard via groups.io Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 11:34 AM To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: zhichao@intel.com ; ray...@intel.com ; ard.biesheu...@arm.com ; l...@nuviainc.com Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery On 2020.06.17 14:04, Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) wrote: > Thanks for checking my comments, Pete. > >> Or is the "one more" the issue, meaning that it would get signaled more than >> once? > [Sunny] Yeah, it would get signaled more than once if the PlatformRecovery > option (a UEFI application) calls EfiBootManagerBoot() to launch the > recovered boot option inside of the application. Okay. One element that I'm going to point out is that, with the current EDK2 code (i.e. without this proposal applied), and after a user goes into the setup to save their boot options in order for regular boot options to get executed instead of PlaformRecovery, the OnReadyToBoot event is actually called twice. So my understanding is that, while we of course want to avoid this and any patch proposal should actively try to prevent it, it seems we already have behaviour in EDK2 that can lead to OnReadyToBoot being signalled more than once. At least the current Pi 4 platform does demonstrate this behaviour. For instance, if you run DEBUG, you will see two instances of: RemoveDtStdoutPath: could not retrieve DT blob - Not Found which is a one-instance message generated from the ConsolePrefDxe's OnReadyToBoot() call. I've also confirmed more specifically that OnReadyToBoot() is indeed called twice. I don't recall us doing much of any special with regards to boot options for the Pi platform, so my guess is that it's probably not the only platform where OnReadyToBoot might be signalled more than once, and that this might be tied to a default EDK2 behaviour. Therefore I don't see having a repeated event as a major deal breaker (though, again, if we can avoid that, we of course will want to). >> I don't mind trying an alternative approach, but I don't understand how what >> you describe would help. Can you please be more specific about what you have >> in mind? > [Sunny] Sure. I added more information below. If it is still not clear > enough, feel free to let me know. > 1. Create a UEFI application with the code to signal ReadyToBoot and > pick /efi/boot/bootaa64.efi from either SD or USB and run it. So that would basically be adding code that duplicates, in part, what Platform Recovery already does. I have to be honest: Even outside of the extra work this would require, I don't really like the idea of having to write our own application, as it will introduce new possible points of failures and require extra maintenance (especially as we will want to be able to handle network boot and other options, and before long, I fear that we're going to have to write our own Pi specific boot manager). Doing so simply because the current Platform Recovery, which does suit our needs otherwise, is not designed to call ReadyToBoot does not seem like the best course of action in my book. Instead, I still logically believe that any option that calls a boot loader should signal ReadyToBoot, regardless of whether it was launched from Boot Manager or Platform Recovery, and that it shouldn't be left to each platform to work around that. Of course, I understand that this would require a specs change, and that it also may have ramifications for existing platforms that interpret the current specs pedantically. But to me, regardless of what the specs appear to be limiting it to right now, the logic of a "ReadyToBoot" event is that it should be signalled whenever a bootloader is about to be executed, rather than only when a bootloader happened to be launched through a formal Boot Manager option. I would therefore appreciate if other people could weigh in on this matter, to see if I'm the only one who believes that we could ultimately have more to gain from signalling ReadyToBoot with PlatformRecovery options than leaving things as they stand right now... > 2. Then, call EfiBootManagerInitializeLoadOption like the following in > a DXE driver or other places before "Default PlatformRecovery" registration: >Status = EfiBootManagerInitializeLoadOption ( > , > 0, >-> 0 is the OptionNumber to let application be load before " > Default PlatformRecovery" option >
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
I was just thinking that we may not really need to make this behavior change in both EDK II code and UEFI specification for solving the problem specific to the case that OS is loaded by "Default PlatformRecovery" option, The way I see it is that the Pi platform is unlikely to be the only one where PlatformRecovery is seen as a means to install an OS. Granted, this may seem like abusing the option, but since UEFI doesn't provide an "Initial OS Install" mode, I would assert that it as good a use of this option as any. In other words, I don't think this improvement would only benefit the Pi platform. and I'm also not sure if it is worth making this change to affect some of the system or BIOS vendors who have implemented their PlatformRecovery option. That's a legitimate concern, and I would agree the one major potential pitfall of this proposal, if there happens to exist a system where an OnReadyToBoot even before running the recovery option can have adverse effects. I don't really believe that such a system exists, because I expect most recovery boot loaders to also work (or at least have been designed to work) as regular boot options. But I don't have enough experience with platform recovery to know if that's a correct assertion to make... If the alternative approach I mentioned works for you, I think that would be an easier solution. Right now, even as the patch proposal has multiple issues that require it to be amended (Don't signal ReadyToBoot except for PlatformRecovery + Prevent situations where ReadyToBoot could be signalled multiple times) I still see it as both an easier solution than the alternative, as well as one that *should* benefit people who design Platform Recovery UEFI applications in the long run. So that is why I am still trying to advocate for it. But I very much hear your concerns, and I agree that specs changes are better avoided when possible. Thus, at this stage, even as I don't want to drag this discussion much further, I don't feel like I want to commit to one solution or the other before we have had a chance to hear other people, who may have their own opinion on the matter, express their views. Regards, /Pete Regards, Sunny Wang -Original Message- From: Pete Batard [mailto:p...@akeo.ie] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 6:59 PM To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: zhichao@intel.com; ray...@intel.com; ard.biesheu...@arm.com; l...@nuviainc.com Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery Hi Sunny, thanks for looking into this. On 2020.06.17 09:16, Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) wrote: Hi Pete. Since the EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption is called by ProcessLoadOptions as well, your change would also cause some unexpected behavior like: 1. Signal one more ReadyToBoot for the PlatformRecovery option which is an application that calls EfiBootManagerBoot() to launch its recovered boot option. I'm not sure I understand how this part is unwanted. The point of this patch is to ensure that ReadyToBoot is signalled for the PlatformRecovery option, so isn't what you describe above exactly what we want? Or is the "one more" the issue, meaning that it would get signalled more than once? 2. Signal ReadyToBoot for SysPrep or Driver that is not really a "boot" option. Yes, I've been wondering about that, because BdsEntry.c's ProcessLoadOptions(), which calls EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption(), mentions that it will load will load and start every Driver, SysPrep or PlatformRecovery. But the comment about the while() loop in EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption() only mentions PlatformRecovery. If needed, I guess we could amend the patch to detect the type of option and only signal ReadyToBoot for PlatformRecovery. To solve your problem, creating a PlatformRecovery option with the smallest option number and using it instead of default one (with short-form File Path Media Device Path) looks like a simpler solution. I don't mind trying an alternative approach, but I don't understand how what you describe would help. Can you please be more specific about what you have in mind? Our main issue here is that we must have ReadyToBoot signalled so that the ReadyToBoot() function callback from EmbeddedPkg/Drivers/ConsolePrefDxe gets executed in order for the boot loader invoked from PlatformRecovery to use a properly initialized graphical console. So I'm not sure I quite get how switching from one PlatformRecovery option to another would improve things. If it helps, here is what we currently default to, in terms of boot options, on a Raspberry Pi 4 platform with a newly build firmware: [Bds]=Begin Load Options Dumping ...= Driver Options: SysPrep Options: Boot Options: Boot: UiApp 0x0109 Boot
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
Thanks for checking my comments, Pete. > Or is the "one more" the issue, meaning that it would get signaled more than > once? [Sunny] Yeah, it would get signaled more than once if the PlatformRecovery option (a UEFI application) calls EfiBootManagerBoot() to launch the recovered boot option inside of the application. > I don't mind trying an alternative approach, but I don't understand how what > you describe would help. Can you please be more specific about what you have > in mind? [Sunny] Sure. I added more information below. If it is still not clear enough, feel free to let me know. 1. Create a UEFI application with the code to signal ReadyToBoot and pick /efi/boot/bootaa64.efi from either SD or USB and run it. 2. Then, call EfiBootManagerInitializeLoadOption like the following in a DXE driver or other places before "Default PlatformRecovery" registration: Status = EfiBootManagerInitializeLoadOption ( , 0, -> 0 is the OptionNumber to let application be load before " Default PlatformRecovery" option LoadOptionTypePlatformRecovery, LOAD_OPTION_ACTIVE, L"Application for recovering boot options", FilePath, -> FilePath is the Application's device path, NULL, 0 ); > My reasoning is that, if PlatformRecovery can execute a regular > bootloader like /efi/boot/boot.efi from installation media, then it > should go through the same kind of initialization that happens for a regular > boot option, and that should include signaling the ReadyToBoot event. [Sunny] Thanks for clarifying this, and Sorry about that I missed your cover letter for this patch. I was just thinking that we may not really need to make this behavior change in both EDK II code and UEFI specification for solving the problem specific to the case that OS is loaded by "Default PlatformRecovery" option, and I'm also not sure if it is worth making this change to affect some of the system or BIOS vendors who have implemented their PlatformRecovery option. If the alternative approach I mentioned works for you, I think that would be an easier solution. Regards, Sunny Wang -Original Message- From: Pete Batard [mailto:p...@akeo.ie] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 6:59 PM To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) ; devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: zhichao@intel.com; ray...@intel.com; ard.biesheu...@arm.com; l...@nuviainc.com Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery Hi Sunny, thanks for looking into this. On 2020.06.17 09:16, Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) wrote: > Hi Pete. > > Since the EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption is called by ProcessLoadOptions as > well, your change would also cause some unexpected behavior like: > 1. Signal one more ReadyToBoot for the PlatformRecovery option which is an > application that calls EfiBootManagerBoot() to launch its recovered boot > option. I'm not sure I understand how this part is unwanted. The point of this patch is to ensure that ReadyToBoot is signalled for the PlatformRecovery option, so isn't what you describe above exactly what we want? Or is the "one more" the issue, meaning that it would get signalled more than once? > 2. Signal ReadyToBoot for SysPrep or Driver that is not really a > "boot" option. Yes, I've been wondering about that, because BdsEntry.c's ProcessLoadOptions(), which calls EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption(), mentions that it will load will load and start every Driver, SysPrep or PlatformRecovery. But the comment about the while() loop in EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption() only mentions PlatformRecovery. If needed, I guess we could amend the patch to detect the type of option and only signal ReadyToBoot for PlatformRecovery. > To solve your problem, creating a PlatformRecovery option with the smallest > option number and using it instead of default one (with short-form File Path > Media Device Path) looks like a simpler solution. I don't mind trying an alternative approach, but I don't understand how what you describe would help. Can you please be more specific about what you have in mind? Our main issue here is that we must have ReadyToBoot signalled so that the ReadyToBoot() function callback from EmbeddedPkg/Drivers/ConsolePrefDxe gets executed in order for the boot loader invoked from PlatformRecovery to use a properly initialized graphical console. So I'm not sure I quite get how switching from one PlatformRecovery option to another would improve things. If it helps, here is what we currently default to, in terms of boot o
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
ecovery can launch a /efi/boot/boot.efi bootloader then we must update the specs and the code to have ReadyToBoot also signalled then, because that's the logical thing to do). But right now, I'm not seeing how to achieve that when PlatformRecovery is the option that is used to launch the OS installation the bootloader. So if you can provide mode details on how exactly you think creating an alternate PlatformRecovery option would help, I would appreciate it. Regards, /Pete Regards, Sunny Wang -Original Message- From: devel@edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of Pete Batard Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:56 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: zhichao@intel.com; ray...@intel.com; ard.biesheu...@arm.com; l...@nuviainc.com Subject: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery Currently, the ReadyToBoot event is only signaled when a formal Boot Manager option is executed (in BmBoot.c -> EfiBootManagerBoot ()). However, with the introduction of Platform Recovery in UEFI 2.5, which may lead to the execution of a boot loader that has similar requirements to a regular one, yet is not launched as a Boot Manager option, it also becomes necessary to signal ReadyToBoot when a Platform Recovery boot loader runs. Especially, this can be critical to ensuring that the graphical console is actually usable during platform recovery, as some platforms do rely on the ConsolePrefDxe driver, which only performs console initialization after ReadyToBoot is triggered. This patch fixes that behaviour by calling EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot () in EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption (), which is the function that sets up the platform recovery boot process. Signed-off-by: Pete Batard --- MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c | 9 + 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c b/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c index 89372b3b97b8..117f1f5b124c 100644 --- a/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c @@ -1376,6 +1376,15 @@ EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption ( return EFI_SUCCESS; } + // + // Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we are about to load and execute the boot option. + // + EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot (); + // + // Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled // + REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE, (EFI_SOFTWARE_DXE_BS_DRIVER | + EFI_SW_DXE_BS_PC_READY_TO_BOOT_EVENT)); + // // Load and start the load option. // -- 2.21.0.windows.1 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#61400): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/61400 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/74912987/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
Hi Pete. Since the EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption is called by ProcessLoadOptions as well, your change would also cause some unexpected behavior like: 1. Signal one more ReadyToBoot for the PlatformRecovery option which is an application that calls EfiBootManagerBoot() to launch its recovered boot option. 2. Signal ReadyToBoot for SysPrep or Driver that is not really a "boot" option. To solve your problem, creating a PlatformRecovery option with the smallest option number and using it instead of default one (with short-form File Path Media Device Path) looks like a simpler solution. By the way, I also checked the UEFI specification. It looks making sense to only signal ReadyToBoot for boot option (Boot). Therefore, your change may also require specification change. Regards, Sunny Wang -Original Message- From: devel@edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of Pete Batard Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:56 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: zhichao@intel.com; ray...@intel.com; ard.biesheu...@arm.com; l...@nuviainc.com Subject: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery Currently, the ReadyToBoot event is only signaled when a formal Boot Manager option is executed (in BmBoot.c -> EfiBootManagerBoot ()). However, with the introduction of Platform Recovery in UEFI 2.5, which may lead to the execution of a boot loader that has similar requirements to a regular one, yet is not launched as a Boot Manager option, it also becomes necessary to signal ReadyToBoot when a Platform Recovery boot loader runs. Especially, this can be critical to ensuring that the graphical console is actually usable during platform recovery, as some platforms do rely on the ConsolePrefDxe driver, which only performs console initialization after ReadyToBoot is triggered. This patch fixes that behaviour by calling EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot () in EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption (), which is the function that sets up the platform recovery boot process. Signed-off-by: Pete Batard --- MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c | 9 + 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c b/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c index 89372b3b97b8..117f1f5b124c 100644 --- a/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c @@ -1376,6 +1376,15 @@ EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption ( return EFI_SUCCESS; } + // + // Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we are about to load and execute the boot option. + // + EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot (); + // + // Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled // + REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE, (EFI_SOFTWARE_DXE_BS_DRIVER | + EFI_SW_DXE_BS_PC_READY_TO_BOOT_EVENT)); + // // Load and start the load option. // -- 2.21.0.windows.1 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#61389): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/61389 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/74912987/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery
Currently, the ReadyToBoot event is only signaled when a formal Boot Manager option is executed (in BmBoot.c -> EfiBootManagerBoot ()). However, with the introduction of Platform Recovery in UEFI 2.5, which may lead to the execution of a boot loader that has similar requirements to a regular one, yet is not launched as a Boot Manager option, it also becomes necessary to signal ReadyToBoot when a Platform Recovery boot loader runs. Especially, this can be critical to ensuring that the graphical console is actually usable during platform recovery, as some platforms do rely on the ConsolePrefDxe driver, which only performs console initialization after ReadyToBoot is triggered. This patch fixes that behaviour by calling EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot () in EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption (), which is the function that sets up the platform recovery boot process. Signed-off-by: Pete Batard --- MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c | 9 + 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c b/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c index 89372b3b97b8..117f1f5b124c 100644 --- a/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c @@ -1376,6 +1376,15 @@ EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption ( return EFI_SUCCESS; } + // + // Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we are about to load and execute the boot option. + // + EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot (); + // + // Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled + // + REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE, (EFI_SOFTWARE_DXE_BS_DRIVER | EFI_SW_DXE_BS_PC_READY_TO_BOOT_EVENT)); + // // Load and start the load option. // -- 2.21.0.windows.1 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#61328): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/61328 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/74912987/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
