On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 09:22:31AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 02:55:38PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 08:23:35AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 01:44:58PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 06:55:50AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > > > Akashi-san, > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 10:51:01AM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > > > > > Ilias, > > > > > > > > > > > > In this patch, you are trying to address a couple of independent > > > > > > issues in a single commit. > > > > > > Please split. > > > > > > (Heinrich doesn't like that.) > > > > > > > > Any comment? > > > > > > They are fixing the ESRT table generation, while cleaning up what's > > > already in > > > there. Besides Heinrich can comment himself if he wants them split or > > > not. > > > > They are fixing "different" problems relating ESRT generation. > > That is my point. > > > > Sure, but it's a minor clean up really. As I said the current code works > fine. So I dont really mind the fact that it breaks a sentence of the spec. > Hence I considered the cleanup and the mutual exclusive part to be really > minor.
Yes, it's minor but still a different problem. Let me give you an example. If I correct a misspelling in a given code very close to the change, Heinrich would ask me to add a separate patch as it is simply not related. Moreover, from the viewpoint of maintenance (i.e. bisect ability), they should be separated from each other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 06:10:14PM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > > > > > Right now we allow both of the FMPs (RAW and FIT based) to be > > > > > > > installed at > > > > > > > the same time. Moreover we only install those if a CapsuleUpdate > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > requested. Since we now have an ESRT table, it makes more sense > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > unconditionally install the FMP, so any userspace applications > > > > > > > (e.g fwupd) > > > > > > > can make use of them and trigger an update. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While at it clean up the FMP installation as well. Chapter 23 of > > > > > > > the EFI > > > > > > > spec (rev 2.9) says: > > > > > > > "A specific updatable hardware firmware store must be represented > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > exactly one FMP instance". > > > > > > > This is not the case for us, since both of our FMP protocols can > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > installed at the same time and are controlled by a single > > > > > > > 'dfu_alt_info' > > > > > > > env variable. > > > > > > > So make the config option a choice and allow the user to install > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > of them at any given time. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to say nak in some respects: > > > > > > - Although I do understand the UEFI requirement that you mentioned > > > > > > above, > > > > > > FIT and RAW FMP drivers can handle *different* firmware even > > > > > > though > > > > > > they share the same dfu_alt_info. > > > > > > > > > > How ? > > > > > > > > One idea that I can imagine is that we may be able to utilize > > > > "update_image_index", which is currently not used effectively, > > > > in order to specify which firmware in dfu_alt_info be handled > > > > by either FIT FMP or RAW FMP. > > > > > > So it's not being used right now, and the fact is they are at the moment > > > doing > > > the same thing. And even if it does, no one in his right mind will create > > > a > > > platform and say "Hey let me create half of the capsules as raw and the > > > rest > > > of them as FIT, it would be fun to watch users struggle". > > > > You misunderstand me. > > Because you asked me about an idea about how to fix the issue, > > I answered to it. I have never said that the current code does not > > have a problem that you mentioned. > > So I said: > > > > > > We should not impose unnecessary restriction if we manage to have > > > > > > some > > > > > > workaround to meet the requirement. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I was mostly asking for existing code that I might have missed in my greps, > but I get the idea. > > > > > > Is there anything very specific that you can achieve with FIT capsules > > > that > > > you can't achieve with RAW ones (or vice versa), that would justify having > > > them both present at the same time? > > > > Yes. > > We may have different *firmware* for different software components > > and different devices. For example, > > You have firmare like U-Boot binary and default variable storage > > in different partitions. > > On the other hand, you have an extra firmware for a particular > > peripheral, like PCI device or anything else, which comes > > from a 3rd party vendor of the device. > > The former may and can be packed into a single binary in FIT format. > > The latter can be used in a separate RAW format as the timing of > > updating those firmware is likely to be different. > > > > Sure that's a use case. But that's not a specific one, nor something you cant > do without both of them being installed. You can arguably just create a RAW > image for the second firmware and put the info into dfu_alt_info. Why do you stick to a single format? We can reasonably assume that each FMP may have a different format. I think it's a very natural thing. > So unless we > have an example of a device that says "This firmware file can only be updated > by a FIT image, while the rest of the firmware is on a FAT filesystem", I > don't > see any reason why we need to support that. The changes are not set in stone > anyway. The code was fine before the ESRT got involved. So all my patch > really does is make the current code useful when an ESRT is installed. We can > then break the spec on purpose (yes break it :>) ignore the OsIndications > bit and have fwupd working with U-Boot. This will have an actual impact on > devices and the code usability, since people will start using it. I prefer > this over adding a very cumbersome corner case, that's arguably no one will > ever need. > We can always go back and make them a config option in the future. But > unless > we get a use case for it, I'd still prefer having them mutually exclusive, > rather than adding code for an imaginary device (which I really doubt anyone > will ever design). I don't think that the example I gave is a imaginary device. > > > > > > > > > > We should not impose unnecessary restriction if we manage to have > > > > > > some > > > > > > workaround to meet the requirement. > > > > > > > > > > It's not the updating part only. It's that the .get_image_info also > > > > > relies on > > > > > the same env variable. > > > > > > > > The above idea can and should be applied to GetImageInfo implementation > > > > at the same time. > > > > > > Yes but can you do it with just changing the env variable now? Or you > > > need to > > > add more code into the DFU logic? > > > > Those *meta* data for firmware can be declared/specified outside of FMP, > > and be referred to by FMP (and/or ESRT). That is what I meant by: > > > > > > (I still believe that the firmware definition for ESRT should > > > > > > exist > > > > > > elsewhere other than in FMP themselves.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Specifically in the fwupd case on an RPI4 with the > > > > > dfu set at 'dfu_alt_info=u-boot.bin fat 0 1;' although 2 ERSTs > > > > > entries were > > > > > populated only one was reported. Probably because this really does > > > > > give you > > > > > 2 ways of updating the same flash. > > > > > > > > > > > (I still believe that the firmware definition for ESRT should > > > > > > exist > > > > > > elsewhere other than in FMP themselves.) > > > > > > > > > > That's a whole different story, and if we have that, then > > > > > .get_image_info > > > > > should change as well instead of using the DFU information. > > > > > > > > I don't think so as I mentioned above. > > > > > > And I don't see any benefit from storing the same information in 2 > > > completely > > > disjoint entities. > > > > ? > > The ESRT code right now uses get_image_info from the FMP code and the FMP code > uses the dfu_alt_info to derive whatever information it needs. Both of these > concepts are trying to provide information about the running firmware. So if > we change that imho both of them should get that info from an abstracted > object (file/c struct in u-boot/whatever). But really I think using FMP to > fill ESRT entries is fine (at least for me). Well, dfu_alt_info can already be seen as abstracted object in terms of FMP. > > > > > > > > > > > Because right > > > > > now we enabled security (or think we have), while allowing users to > > > > > set an env > > > > > variable which is not authenticated, and completely change what the > > > > > firmware reports (or updates). > > > > > > > > This is the point that I mentioned earlier in our private chat, > > > > and it's a "whole different" story in this context. > > > > > > You mentioned that in the context of "can we install the FMPs during the > > > EFI > > > init". Since the variable is interpreted at runtime, we definitely can. I > > > looked back at that chat and saw nothing related to the security problems > > > we'll create. > > > > You have referred to this issue in the context of security. > > So I said that it was a different story. > > The issue that you're trying to address in this patch is *NOT* security. > > > > No it's not, I am just pointing out the obvious. > > > > In any case the problem here is real, but there are sane ways to avoid it. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can always add a huge warning saying > > > > > something along the lines of "If you really care this should come > > > > > with a > > > > > CONFIG_ENV_IS_NOWHERE and a boot timeout set to -1". > > > > > > > > > > The spec is pretty clear and we allow users to *break* it with a > > > > > config > > > > > option. Arguably this is fine, since the code continues to work fine > > > > > and > > > > > you can perform the updates, but in essence RAW and FITs are used to > > > > > update > > > > > the same medium right now. You can't have a capsule with half it's > > > > > contents > > > > > describing something RAW and the other half being a FIT. You have a > > > > > FIT based > > > > > capsule or a RAW based capsule. > > > > > > > > See above. > > > > > > I still don't get it. > > > The fact is we have a config option, that if the user decides to set in a > > > specific way (and that specific way is 99% of the use cases) we'll break > > > the > > > EFI spec. > > > > As I said above, I have never said that the current implementation does > > not break EFI spec if not properly used. > > So I suggested a possible solution in the previous email as you asked me. > > > > > So unless we add code into the dfu logic, parsing dfu_alt_info and > > > figuring out if the user is allowed to do that or not, I really think > > > those two > > > must be treated as mutually exclusive. > > > > I don't think that we need to modify DFU code. > > Yea me neither, but since the firmware runtime information are derived from > that, we don't have that many options. What do you mean by "options"? -Takahiro Akashi > Thanks > /Ilias > > > > -Takahiro Akashi > > > > > > > > > > > > - We should allow users to add their own FMP drivers and so not call > > > > > > [arch_]efi_load_capsule_drivers() unconditionally > > > > > > even if you don't like "__weak" attribute. > > > > > > > > > > I am fine with the __weak attribute. On the other hand I consider the > > > > > current code the defacto way users would use to update their > > > > > firmware. That's > > > > > why I removed the __weak attribute. If a hardware vendor was to > > > > > update > > > > > their special PCI option ROM or a flash that lives on the secure > > > > > world they > > > > > should install their FMPs on a different handle and leave the current > > > > > code > > > > > as is. > > > > > > > > And we should provide an option that disables these existing handle. > > > > > > The existing one is not enough? > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Selecting only one of FIT and RAW FMPs in sandbox*_defconfig will > > > > > > leave some test cases in pytest skipped. > > > > > > > > > > Yea that's unfortunate, but maybe we can just add an extra config on > > > > > the > > > > > sandbox? > > > > > > > > Please add another patch that is missing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Takahiro Akashi > > > >
