All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
To: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com>
Cc: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>, u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] efi_loader: CloseProtocol in efi_fmp_find
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 09:11:01 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221012001101.GB49651@laputa> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41bd6e81-f5df-7afc-f2f5-9014b1506692@canonical.com>

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:12:18PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/11/22 13:08, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 10/11/22 09:35, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 07:58:11AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 10/11/22 02:49, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > > > > The commit message is not accurate.
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 04:06:23PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > > > > The CloseProtocol() boot service requires a handle as first argument.
> > > > > > Passing the protocol interface is incorrect.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Correct, but
> > > > > 
> > > > > > CloseProtocol() only has an effect if called with a non-zero value for
> > > > > > agent_handle. HandleProtocol() uses an opaque
> > > > > > agent_handle when invoking
> > > > > > OpenProtocol() (currently NULL).
> > > > > 
> > > > > No. OpenProtocol() is called with efi_root as an agent handle.
> > > > > So, calling CloseProtocol() is a right thing at the end.
> > > > 
> > > > Typically an agent handle is used to relate to a driver exposing
> > > > the driver
> > > > binding protocol.
> > > 
> > > Why can't we, other than a driver, call HandleProtocol()
> > > as a convenient way of accessing an interface?
> > 
> > The description of HandleProtocol() clearly says that it is deprecated.
> > 
> > The assumption that the UEFI specification makes in it is example code
> > that you never be able to close a protocol opened with HandleProtocol.
> > 
> > After the first usage of handle protocol the open protocol information
> > with the opaque agent handle will block the protocol interface from ever
> > being removed by the driver exposing it.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > The root node does not expose the driver binding protocol.
> > > 
> > > So do you mean the current implementation of HandleProtocol() is wrong?
> > 
> > Yes. If you ever install a boot time driver, it might remove a protocol
> > interface which is actually still in use.
> 
> Since 755d42d4209e ("efi_loader: correct HandleProtocol()") we set agent
> handle = efi_root in the implementation of HandleProtocol(). So this part is
> ok.

That is why I said using HandleProtocl() is valid and that
your commit message is not accurate.

-Takahiro Akashi


> Best regards
> 
> Heirnich
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > Why would you want to create an open protocol information entry here?
> > > 
> > > To access get_image_info() quickly.
> > 
> > This is not related to an open protocol information (see the UEFI spec
> > description of OpenProtocolInformation()).
> > 
> > Best regards
> > 
> > Heinrich
> > 
> > > 
> > > > Do you think anything with the code after the patch is wrong?
> > > 
> > > No reason to replace handle_protocol().
> > > 
> > > Another example is here:
> > > efi_load_image_from_path()
> > >      efi_handle_protocol(device, guid, (void **)&load_file_protocol));
> > >      ...
> > >      efi_close_protocol(device, guid, efi_root, NULL);
> > > 
> > > I believe that this function is anything but a driver.
> > > I think using HandleProtocol() (or preferably OpenProtocol()) and
> > > CloseProtocol()
> > > in pair seems totally sane.
> > > 
> > > -Takahiro Akashi
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Best regards
> > > > 
> > > > Heinrich
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Therefore HandleProtocol() should be
> > > > > > avoided.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > * Replace the LocateHandle() call by efi_search_protocol().
> > > > > 
> > > > > LocateHandle() -> efi_handle_protocol()
> > > > > 
> > > > > So you could have fixed this way:
> > > > >       EFI_CALL(efi_close_protocol(handle, ..., &efi_root, NULL);
> > > > > 
> > > > > I preferred to use EFI_CALL() over this file as you can see.
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Takahiro Akashi
> > > > > 
> > > > > > * Remove the CloseProtocol() call.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Fixes: 8d99026f0697 ("efi_loader: capsule: support firmware update")
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >    lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c | 14 ++++++--------
> > > > > >    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c
> > > > > > b/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c
> > > > > > index b6bd2d6af8..397e393a18 100644
> > > > > > --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c
> > > > > > +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c
> > > > > > @@ -159,12 +159,14 @@ efi_fmp_find(efi_guid_t
> > > > > > *image_type, u8 image_index, u64 instance,
> > > > > >        efi_status_t ret;
> > > > > >        for (i = 0, handle = handles; i < no_handles; i++, handle++) {
> > > > > > -        ret = EFI_CALL(efi_handle_protocol(
> > > > > > -                *handle,
> > > > > > -                &efi_guid_firmware_management_protocol,
> > > > > > -                (void **)&fmp));
> > > > > > +        struct efi_handler *fmp_handler;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +        ret = efi_search_protocol(
> > > > > > +                *handle, &efi_guid_firmware_management_protocol,
> > > > > > +                &fmp_handler);
> > > > > >            if (ret != EFI_SUCCESS)
> > > > > >                continue;
> > > > > > +        fmp = fmp_handler->protocol_interface;
> > > > > >            /* get device's image info */
> > > > > >            info_size = 0;
> > > > > > @@ -215,10 +217,6 @@ efi_fmp_find(efi_guid_t
> > > > > > *image_type, u8 image_index, u64 instance,
> > > > > >    skip:
> > > > > >            efi_free_pool(package_version_name);
> > > > > >            free(image_info);
> > > > > > -        EFI_CALL(efi_close_protocol(
> > > > > > -                (efi_handle_t)fmp,
> > > > > > -                &efi_guid_firmware_management_protocol,
> > > > > > -                NULL, NULL));
> > > > > >            if (found)
> > > > > >                return fmp;
> > > > > >        }
> > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > 2.37.2
> > > > > > 

  reply	other threads:[~2022-10-12  0:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-07 14:06 [PATCH 1/1] efi_loader: CloseProtocol in efi_fmp_find Heinrich Schuchardt
2022-10-07 15:18 ` Ilias Apalodimas
2022-10-11  0:49 ` AKASHI Takahiro
2022-10-11  5:58   ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2022-10-11  7:35     ` AKASHI Takahiro
2022-10-11 11:08       ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2022-10-11 11:12         ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2022-10-12  0:11           ` AKASHI Takahiro [this message]
2022-10-12  0:09         ` AKASHI Takahiro

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20221012001101.GB49651@laputa \
    --to=takahiro.akashi@linaro.org \
    --cc=heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com \
    --cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.