Re: [Qemu-devel] edk2 submodule + binaries (Re: [PATCH V5 2/7] tests/acpi: add pxb/pxb-pcie tests)

[Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel@redhat.com>]

On 07/19/2016 02:42 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 07/19/16 12:48, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>    Hi,
>>
>>>>   (2) ia32 ovmf too?  Will anybody use it?
>>>
>>> Then the next question is, what's the status of 32-bit UEFI OSes? Simple:
>>
>>> [ summary: bad ]
>>
>> Yep, that matches the impression I have.
>> Guess we don't want bother then.
>>
>>> Enabling Secure Boot in the OVMF binary is orthogonal to all of the
>>> above, but it has a licensing impact. It embeds (a subset of) OpenSSL in
>>> the binary, and changes the terms from "2-clause BSDL" to "2-clause BSDL
>>> and OpenSSL license" ("and" in the restrictive, not permissive, sense).
>>> I'm unsure if QEMU is willing and able to distribute such binaries.
>>>
>>> For the widest and simplest usability, X64 (without the SMM driver stack
>>> and without Secure Boot) is likely the best.
>>
>> Yes (also note the smm-enabled one doesn't run on i440fx).
>>
>> So the options I see are (a) build without smm or (b) build two
>> variants.
>
> I think people who just want to run "UEFI payloads" are served well
> enough by SMM-less. There are some developers who would benefit from a
> -D SMM_REQUIRE build as well, but that would be because they actually
> focus on SMM, I believe, so they can build their own firmware.
>
> If this is about the convenience of QEMU end-users, then I vote (a). I'd
> certainly like to avoid fielding bug reports that boil down to "I booted
> the -D SMM_REQUIRE build on i440fx".
>

I agree. For x86_64, OVMF 64-bit binaries without SMM or secure-boot
support are enough for a wide "audience".


Thanks,
Marcel

[...]