Re: Pull request for efi-2021-10-rc4

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7558 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 12:52:52PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/9/21 10:56 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Heinrich,
> > 
> > On Sat, 4 Sept 2021 at 12:08, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Am 4. September 2021 19:39:49 MESZ schrieb Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 07:03:48PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Am 4. September 2021 16:37:22 MESZ schrieb Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>:
> > > > > > On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Am 4. September 2021 15:01:11 MESZ schrieb Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 11:56:47AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Dear Tom,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The following changes since commit 94509b79b13e69c209199af0757afbde8d2ebd6d:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >    btrfs: Use default subvolume as filesystem root (2021-09-01 10:11:24
> > > > > > > > > -0400)
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > are available in the Git repository at:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >    https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-efi.git
> > > > > > > > > tags/efi-2021-10-rc4
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > for you to fetch changes up to 1dfa494610c5469cc28cf1f8538abf4be6c00324:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >    efi_loader: fix efi_tcg2_hash_log_extend_event() parameter check
> > > > > > > > > (2021-09-04 09:15:09 +0200)
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Pull request for efi-2021-10-rc4
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Documentation:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >      Remove invalid reference to configuration variable in UEFI doc
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > UEFI:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >      Parameter checks for the EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL
> > > > > > > > >      Improve support of preseeding UEFI variables.
> > > > > > > > >      Correct the calculation of the size of loaded images.
> > > > > > > > >      Allow for UEFI images with zero VirtualSize
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > Heinrich Schuchardt (5):
> > > > > > > > >        efi_loader: sections with zero VirtualSize
> > > > > > > > >        efi_loader: rounding of image size
> > > > > > > > >        efi_loader: don't load signature database from file
> > > > > > > > >        efi_loader: efi_auth_var_type for AuditMode, DeployedMode
> > > > > > > > >        efi_loader: correct determination of secure boot state
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Masahisa Kojima (3):
> > > > > > > > >        efi_loader: add missing parameter check for EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL api
> > > > > > > > >        efi_loader: fix boot_service_capability_min calculation
> > > > > > > > >        efi_loader: fix efi_tcg2_hash_log_extend_event() parameter check
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > And I don't see Simon's revert in here either.  And he asked you about
> > > > > > > > that yesterday:
> > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAPnjgZ3eRdjF0jb9S-cJK6y+feuyRyWf0hNkf2triB4DR4UFBQ@mail.gmail.com/
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > So at this point, are you asserting there is nothing to revert?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Never. Simons "revert" is breaking functionality. The concept for suporting blobs in devicetrees supplied by a prior bootstage has not been defined yet.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And to be clearer, reverting something that was introduced in one rc in
> > > > > > a later rc isn't breaking functionality.  U-Boot releases (well, the
> > > > > > non-rc ones for sure) are on a very regular schedule.  External projects
> > > > > > may not depend on some feature introduced at -rcN unless they're willing
> > > > > > to accept that some changes could happen before release.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > There is no value delivered by Simon's series. Neither does the image get smaller nor does it fix anything. If he wants to enforce a design, it must work for all use cases. But this requires some conceptual work.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, and what's the rush to not do the conceptual work?  If I recall
> > > > part of the thread correctly, yes, Simon didn't get his objections in
> > > > before the patches were merged, but it was early enough in the release
> > > > cycle that taking a step back and reverting was a reasonable request.
> > > > What he had said wouldn't have changed if he had gotten the email out a
> > > > few days earlier.
> > > > 
> > > > So yes, please merge Simon's revert, or post and merge new more minimal
> > > > revert that brings things to the same functional end.  There are
> > > > objections to this implementation, and thus far Simon has been
> > > > responding all of the requests to better clarify all of the related code
> > > > and concepts that have been asked of him, so that in the end an
> > > > implementation that fulfills all of the technical requirements can be
> > > > created, that hopefully leaves all parties satisfied.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > There is nothing wrong with the current code.
> > 
> > The current code is misconceived and I did go to great effort to
> > explain that in the 'devicetree' series.
> > 
> > > 
> > > It is Simon's concept of blobs in devicetrees that is borked in that it ignores QEMU and any board that gets the DT from a prior boot stage.
> > 
> > That's because I was completely unaware of this strange back-door
> > approach. It would have helped a lot if someone had bothered to create
> 
> CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE is not a backdoor. And you are the DM maintainer.
> 
> > some documentation for the design. Then I would have seen the problem
> > immediately.
> > 
> > Anyway, it is now covered by the above series. The use of devicetree
> > in U-Boot is very clear, I think.
> 
> I see neither a design by you nor a series that covers
> CONFIG_OF_PRIOR_STAGE. I have suggested that if you really want to move
> this blob to a devicetree you could apply an overlay tree including
> U-Boot specific fields to the devicetree of the prior stage. Did you yet
> respond to this?

Given that I feel like "u-boot,dm-spl" and "u-boot,dm-pre-reloc" are
unlikely to survive upstream review, I would like to hear what you think
about applying overlays, at least in general, Simon.

> > > Simon's patches have no functional end. So what do you mean by "same functional end"?
> > 
> > So, please, again, will someone apply the revert before the release
> > and people start relying on it.
> 
> Sure we want capsule updates. My understanding is that you want to
> modify the current implementation. That is fine. It has no effect on the
> user where a blob is stored unless you remove it as your series does. So
> I cannot understand your urgency. Instead collaborate with Ilias and me
> on the possible design change.

I believe Simon's urgency comes from the idea that once we put this
method in a release we'll be stuck with using it or supporting it
forever.  That's certainly a general concern of mine.  We can make
changes between -rc1 and release and if something else decides to depend
on an ABI we changed in the middle there, that was a bad idea on their
part.  But then it's on us once it's in a full release.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]