hi Simon,
On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 at 08:16, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Sughosh,
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 00:40, Sughosh Ganu sughosh.ganu@linaro.org wrote:
hi Ilias,
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 13:06, Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org wrote:
Hi all,
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 07:23, Sughosh Ganu sughosh.ganu@linaro.org wrote:
hi Simon,
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 at 03:42, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Sughosh,
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 00:02, Sughosh Ganu sughosh.ganu@linaro.org wrote:
Add support for specifying the parameters needed for capsule generation through a config file, instead of passing them through command-line. Parameters for more than a single capsule file can be specified, resulting in generation of multiple capsules through a single invocation of the command.
The config file can then be passed to the mkeficapsule tool in such manner
$ ./tools/mkeficapsule -f <path/to/the/config/file>
Signed-off-by: Sughosh Ganu sughosh.ganu@linaro.org
tools/Kconfig | 15 ++ tools/Makefile | 1 + tools/eficapsule.h | 114 ++++++++++++ tools/mkeficapsule.c | 87 +++++---- tools/mkeficapsule_parse.c | 352 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 538 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tools/mkeficapsule_parse.c
This patch keeps coming back :-)
Can we not add multiple capsules in the binman description? Why do we need a new file format? How can binman decode images produced in this way?
So as Tom mentions, this brings parity with respect to the other capsule generation tool in EDKII that generates capsules. IIRC, this is something which even Xilix was interested in, and Michal had kind of gone through these patches earlier. Lastly, it would be good to have support in U-Boot's mkeficapsule tool for generating a single capsule file with multiple payloads, and having support for this functionality helps in that goal.
Also, you might have noticed that, since your objection to the last series, I have removed putting this in binman. So now, this aspect of the capsule generation would only be supported through the command-line invocation of the tool.
I think that overall the approach is sane. mkeficapsule is currently supported and compiled for distros, so the multiple payload support is useful. If we want to add support to binman, instead of rewriting this in python, we could just call that tool for parsing and creating capsules
Given the amount of time these patches have been under review(also number of iterations), I would request that this series be reviewed and merged first. I think there is general consensus that there is value to have this functionality in the mkeficapsule tool. If it is deemed fit to support this through binman as well, that task can be taken up separately. Thanks.
The point you are missing is that it is the entire goal of 'skirting around' binman which is suspect.
If there is a need to generate an output file from the build, we should support it in binman. If people start creating configuration files all over the place, then they are not using binman, right?
I understand that there are pre-existing vendor-specific config files, etc. that the EFI thing is a grey area, but I cannot imagine that this patch would lead to a good outcome.
The goal of binman is to bring order to the chaos of firmware packaging...we cannot do that if it is not actually used.
So let's figure out what is missing from binman's capsule generation (multiple capsules? accept/reject capsules?) and how best to add it.
I think I need to jog your memory back a bit. For context, I have jotted down the points.
* The mkeficapsule tool generates capsules in U-Boot. * Currently, when the tool is invoked from the command-line, the capsules are generated by passing the capsule parameters as cmd-line options. * I had earlier added support for generating the capsules as part of U-Boot build, through binman. This support has been merged. * I had followed these patches up with another series [1] which generates capsules by parsing the capsule parameters through a config file instead of cmd-line options. * This series also had patches which were attempting to integrate this functionality into binman [2]. * As part of reviewing the patch series, you had objected to adding this support in binman, primarily because this way of specifying the capsule parameters goes against the normal way of image description in binman [3]. * I have described in this mail thread about why we need to have support for generating capsules through config files [4].
So, in essence, this functionality is needed to be added to the tool. I have earlier tried integrating this in binman, but that was rejected. So, the way I see this moving ahead is to first add support for this feature in the tool, and then see if this can also be added in binman. As I mentioned earlier, I am fine with this functionality not getting integrated with binman, if this contravenes the idea of describing images in binman, and if no exceptions can be made on that regard. But please do understand that no attempt is being made at 'skirting around binman'. In fact, I had worked on your earlier objection of using absolute paths in testing this functionality in binman. But then you had put the other objection of how this does not follow the idea or concept of image description in binman. Hence this approach.
-sughosh
[1] - https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20230908120002.29851-1-sughosh.ganu@linaro.or... [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20230908120002.29851-4-sughosh.ganu@linaro.or... [3] - https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAPnjgZ3Zi3hmQg7d5+0461hRK+5O_V89PY=QxMwQarhh... [4] - https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CADg8p94EvJc6HNKvk2_XWaDb97u28vGfZasnv2je4yJw...
-sughosh
Thanks /Ilias
Also, could we get sandbox to produce one EFI capsule as part of the normal build? I think that discussion trailed off.
Yes, apologies for missing out on this. Slipped my mind. Would you want, say, all the non-signed capsules to be generated as part of the sandbox build?
-sughosh
Regards, Simon