Hi Tom,
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 at 21:51, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 01:33:23PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 16:32, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 12:02:23AM +0200, Simon Glass wrote:
Add a simple test of booting with the EFI bootmeth, which runs the app and checks that it can call 'exit boot-services' (to check that all the device-removal code doesn't break anything) and then exit back to U-Boot.
This uses a disk image containing the testapp, ready for execution by sandbox when needed.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
So lets go to the problem point. What asserts here fail due to ANSI escape codes being in the output and needing to be filtered out?
[snip]
diff --git a/test/boot/bootflow.c b/test/boot/bootflow.c index e05103188b4..da2ee1ab345 100644 --- a/test/boot/bootflow.c +++ b/test/boot/bootflow.c @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ #include <cli.h> #include <dm.h> #include <efi_default_filename.h> +#include <efi_loader.h> #include <expo.h> #ifdef CONFIG_SANDBOX #include <asm/test.h> @@ -31,6 +32,9 @@ extern U_BOOT_DRIVER(bootmeth_android); extern U_BOOT_DRIVER(bootmeth_cros); extern U_BOOT_DRIVER(bootmeth_2script);
+/* Use this as the vendor for EFI to tell the app to exit boot services */ +static u16 __efi_runtime_data test_vendor[] = u"U-Boot testing";
static int inject_response(struct unit_test_state *uts) { /* @@ -1205,3 +1209,62 @@ static int bootflow_android(struct unit_test_state *uts) return 0; } BOOTSTD_TEST(bootflow_android, UTF_CONSOLE);
+/* Test EFI bootmeth */ +static int bootflow_efi(struct unit_test_state *uts) +{
/* disable ethernet since the hunter will run dhcp */test_set_eth_enable(false);/* make USB scan without delays */test_set_skip_delays(true);bootstd_reset_usb();/* Avoid outputting ANSI characters which mess with our asserts */efi_console_set_ansi(false);ut_assertok(bootstd_test_drop_bootdev_order(uts));ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan", 0));ut_assert_skip_to_line("Bus usb@1: scanning bus usb@1 for devices... 5 USB Device(s) found");ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow list", 0));ut_assert_nextlinen("Showing all");ut_assert_nextlinen("Seq");ut_assert_nextlinen("---");ut_assert_nextlinen(" 0 extlinux");ut_assert_nextlinen(" 1 efi ready usb_mass_ 1 usb_mass_storage.lun0.boo /EFI/BOOT/BOOTSBOX.EFI");ut_assert_nextlinen("---");ut_assert_skip_to_line("(2 bootflows, 2 valid)");ut_assert_console_end();ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow select 1", 0));ut_assert_console_end();systab.fw_vendor = test_vendor;ut_asserteq(1, run_command("bootflow boot", 0));ut_assert_nextline("** Booting bootflow 'usb_mass_storage.lun0.bootdev.part_1' with efi");if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOGF_FUNC))ut_assert_skip_to_line(" efi_run_image() Booting /\\EFI\\BOOT\\BOOTSBOX.EFI");elseut_assert_skip_to_line("Booting /\\EFI\\BOOT\\BOOTSBOX.EFI");/* TODO: Why the \r ? */ut_assert_nextline("U-Boot test app for EFI_LOADER\r");ut_assert_nextline("Exiting boot sevices");if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOGF_FUNC))ut_assert_nextline(" do_bootefi_exec() ## Application failed, r = 5");elseut_assert_nextline("## Application failed, r = 5");ut_assert_nextline("Boot failed (err=-22)");ut_assert_console_end();return 0;+} +BOOTSTD_TEST(bootflow_efi, UTF_CONSOLE);
Thanks for taking an interest in this.
Nothing at present, as I added ut_assert_skip_to_line() to skip it all. But it really is just wrong...I get gibberish showing up in the terminal after I run tests! This is what I see with this series:
** Booting bootflow 'usb_mass_storage.lun0.bootdev.part_1' with efi 7 [r [999;999H [6n 8No EFI system partition
^^^ strange output there but I'm not sure if it will come through on email
No EFI system partition Failed to persist EFI variables No EFI system partition Failed to persist EFI variables No EFI system partition Failed to persist EFI variables Booting /\EFI\BOOT\BOOTSBOX.EFI U-Boot test app for EFI_LOADER
Exiting boot sevices ## Application failed, r = 5 Boot failed (err=-22) Failures: 0
So we're finally making progress I think to see what the problem you're trying to solve is. I think the next thing to figure out is if you use picocom or screen or whatever on console, the codes are handled correctly, or no? Specifically, picocom?
This is my running tests on my normal machine in a terminal. So it is just a sandbox connection, with no picocom, etc. See the Spawn class in test/py
Next, is this perhaps just another strange artifact of how oddly (and as you've noted before, slowly) pytest consumes the console input? It feels like maybe we're doing several layers of wrong there?
Well to be frank I would have just applied my ANSI patch some months ago and stopped worrying about it. We just shouldn't be sending ANSI characters unless we know there is a terminal there. See Color() in tools/u_boot_pylib/terminal.py
But even if we did want to blindly send characters, we should have a way to turn it off.
Because to be clear, this is not a sandbox problem. Looking back at the log I had posted about the watchdog reset not counting banners correctly I see that same escape sequence, now that I know what I'm looking for/at.
I see it all over CI as well. We also have [1].
All of that said, if it's not a pytest-consuming-the-console problem (and it's not a picocom problem, like I was just asking about since the board failure in question was via labgrid-client), maybe it's just a thing to note about making sure tests understand. And perhaps document somewhere why it matters (and I'm not saying it doesn't!) that we know what the dimensions of the console are, for EFI, and so that's why we init them when/where we do.
Or perhaps just have a way to turn it off? I first sent this patch last November. It is just wrong to generate output like this which we don't want. There isn't even a test for it, so just add a way to disable it, and be done!
Regards, SImon
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20240329160922.127095-1-hei...