boot-architecture

boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org

4 participants
648 discussions

by Grant Likely

Hi all, Last week I tagged v1.0-rc1 of EBBR. The release .pdf can be found here: https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/releases It should represent the content we've discussed in the regular meetings for a baseline v1.0 EBBR. Please review and comment. If there are no major objections I intend to release v1.0 final on Friday this week ahead of Linaro Connect. g.

6 years, 4 months

EBBR v0.8 released

by Grant Likely

Hi all, Yesterday I tagged EBBR v0.8 in the git repo and published a new pdf. Please go review and comment. https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr/releases/tag/v0.8 We're nearing the end of the v1.0 process. I would like to tag a v1.0 release before the end of March. Feedback comments from v0.6 and v0.7 have been incorporated. Presuming no major objections, I will tag a v1.0-rc1 on Monday 18 March 2019, to be followed by a final v1.0 on Friday 29 March, There is one more outstanding change that didn't make it into v0.8, but will be in the next release. The UEFI requirements appendix has been removed as it merely duplicates requirements already listed in the UEFI specification. Thanks, g.

6 years, 5 months

[PATCH] Remove unnecessary UEFI requirement tables

by Grant Likely

Nothing in the UEFI Requirements appendix is valuable. The table of required boot services is unnecessary because it is an exact duplicate of the UEFI boot services list in the UEFI spec (and it also happens to be slightly incorrect) (UEFI 2.6.1). It is providing no value to include in EBBR as all UEFI implementations are required to implement the full set. The tables of required core protocols are already specified in the UEFI spec (UEFI 2.6.1) The table of required media i/o protocols are already required if the device supports booting from a disk device (UEFI 2.6.2). The table of console protocols is similarly already required if a console device is present. It isn't clear that HII protocols need to be required. U-Boot does implement them, but it doesn't appear to be a critical requirement on whether or not an OSV can support the platform. The tables of optional UEFI protocols isn't adding any value because it doesn't require anything of implementers, and it doesn't provide any commentary on when the protocols should be included. This is just additional text. Remove the lot to simplify the spec. Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> --- source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst | 203 ------------------------------------ source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 4 - source/index.rst | 1 - 3 files changed, 208 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst diff --git a/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst b/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst deleted file mode 100644 index bb74ca5..0000000 --- a/source/appendix-a-uefi-features.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,203 +0,0 @@ -.. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0 -.. _appendix-uefi-requirements: - -############################################# -APPENDIX A - UEFI Implementation Requirements -############################################# - -Required Boot Services -********************** - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_RAISE_TPL 7.1 -EFI_RESTORE_TPL 7.1 -EFI_ALLOCATE_PAGES 7.2 -EFI_FREE_PAGES 7.2 -EFI_GET_MEMORY_MAP 7.2 -EFI_ALLOCATE_POOL 7.2 -EFI_FREE_POOL 7.2 -EFI_CREATE_EVENT 7.1 -EFI_SET_TIMER 7.1 -EFI_WAIT_FOR_EVENT 7.1 -EFI_SIGNAL_EVENT 7.1 -EFI_CLOSE_EVENT 7.1 -EFI_INSTALL_PROTOCOL_INTERFACE 7.3 -EFI_REINSTALL_PROTOCOL_INTERFACE 7.3 -EFI_UNINSTALL_PROTOCOL_INTERFACE 7.3 -EFI_HANDLE_PROTOCOL 7.3 -EFI_REGISTER_PROTOCOL_NOTIFY 7.3 -EFI_LOCATE_HANDLE 7.3 -EFI_LOCATE_PROTOCOL 7.3 -EFI_LOCATE_DEVICE_PATH 7.3 -EFI_INSTALL_CONFIGURATION_TABLE 7.3 -EFI_IMAGE_LOAD 7.4 -EFI_IMAGE_START 7.4 -EFI_EXIT 7.4 -EFI_IMAGE_UNLOAD 7.4 -EFI_EXIT_BOOT_SERVICES 7.4 -EFI_GET_NEXT_MONOTONIC_COUNT 7.5 -EFI_STALL 7.5 -EFI_SET_WATCHDOG_TIMER 7.5 -EFI_CONNECT_CONTROLLER 7.3 -EFI_DISCONNECT_CONTROLLER 7.3 -EFI_OPEN_PROTOCOL 7.3 -EFI_CLOSE_PROTOCOL 7.3 -EFI_OPEN_PROTOCOL_INFORMATION 7.3 -EFI_PROTOCOLS_PER_HANDLE 7.3 -EFI_LOCATE_HANDLE_BUFFER 7.3 -EFI_LOCATE_PROTOCOL 7.3 -EFI_INSTALL_MULTIPLE_PROTOCOL_INTERFACES 7.3 -EFI_UNINSTALL_MULTIPLE_PROTOCOL_INTERFACES 7.3 -EFI_CALCULATE_CRC32 7.5 -EFI_COPY_MEM 7.5 -EFI_SET_MEM 7.5 -EFI_CREATE_EVENT_EX 7.5 -========================================== ====== - -Required UEFI Protocols -*********************** - -Core UEFI Protocols -=================== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_LOADED_IMAGE_PROTOCOL 9.1 -EFI_LOADED_IMAGE_DEVICE_PATH_PROTOCOL 9.2 -EFI_DECOMPRESS_PROTOCOL 19.5 -EFI_DEVICE_PATH_PROTOCOL 10.2 -EFI_DEVICE_PATH_UTILITIES_PROTOCOL 10.3 -========================================== ====== - -Media I/O Protocols -=================== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_LOAD_FILE2_PROTOCOL 13.2 -EFI_SIMPLE_FILE_SYSTEM_PROTOCOL 13.4 -EFI_FILE_PROTOCOL 13.5 -========================================== ====== - -Console Protocols -================= - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_INPUT_PROTOCOL 12.2 -EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_INPUT_EX_PROTOCOL 12.3 -EFI_SIMPLE_TEXT_OUTPUT_PROTOCOL 12.4 -========================================== ====== - -Driver Configuration Protocols -============================== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_HII_DATABASE_PROTOCOL 33.4 -EFI_HII_STRING_PROTOCOL 33.4 -EFI_HII_CONFIG_ROUTING_PROTOCOL 33.4 -EFI_HII_CONFIG_ACCESS_PROTOCOL 33.4 -========================================== ====== - -Optional UEFI Protocols -*********************** - -Basic Networking Support -======================== - -============================================ ====== -Service UEFI § -============================================ ====== -EFI_SIMPLE_NETWORK_PROTOCOL 24.1 -EFI_MANAGED_NETWORK_PROTOCOL 25.1 -EFI_MANAGED_NETWORK_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 25.1 -============================================ ====== - -.. note:: Networking services are optional on platforms that do not support - networking. - -Network Boot Protocols -====================== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_PXE_BASE_CODE_PROTOCOL 24.3 -EFI_PXE_BASE_CODE_CALLBACK_PROTOCOL 24.4 -EFI_BIS_PROTOCOL 24.5 -EFI_MTFTP4_PROTOCOL 30.3 -EFI_MTFTP6_PROTOCOL 30.4 -========================================== ====== - -.. note:: EFI_BIS_PROTOCOL is optional on machines that do not support Secure - Boot. - -IPV4 Network Support -==================== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_ARP_PROTOCOL 29.1 -EFI_ARP_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 29.1 -EFI_DHCP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 29.2 -EFI_DHCP4_PROTOCOL 29.2 -EFI_TCP4_PROTOCOL 28.1.2 -EFI_TCP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 28.1.1 -EFI_IP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 28.3.1 -EFI_IP4_CONFIG2_PROTOCOL 28.5 -EFI_UDP4_PROTOCOL 30.1.2 -EFI_UDP4_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 30.1.1 -========================================== ====== - -.. note:: Networking services are optional on platforms that do not support - networking. - -IPV6 Network Support -==================== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_DHCP6_PROTOCOL 29.3.2 -EFI_DHCP6_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 29.3.1 -EFI_TCP6_PROTOCOL 28.2.2 -EFI_TCP6_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 28.2.1 -EFI_IP6_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 28.6.1 -EFI_IP6_CONFIG_PROTOCOL 28.7 -EFI_UDP6_PROTOCOL 30.2.2 -EFI_UDP6_SERVICE_BINDING_PROTOCOL 30.2.1 -========================================== ====== - -.. note:: Networking services are optional on platforms that do not support - networking. - -VLAN Protocols -============== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_VLAN_CONFIG_PROTOCOL 27.1 -========================================== ====== - -iSCSI Protocols -=============== - -========================================== ====== -Service UEFI § -========================================== ====== -EFI_ISCSI_INITIATOR_NAME_PROTOCOL 16.2 -========================================== ====== - -.. note:: Support for iSCSI is only required on machines that lack persistent - storage, such as a, HDD. This configuration is intended for thin clients and - compute-only nodes - diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index a8fe3a3..f6a5802 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -17,10 +17,6 @@ UEFI Compliance EBBR compliant platforms shall conform to the requirements in [UEFI]_ § 2.6, except where explicit exemptions are provided by this document. -EBBR compliant platforms shall also implement the UEFI services and -protocols that are listed in :ref:`appendix-uefi-requirements` of this -document. - Block device partitioning ------------------------- diff --git a/source/index.rst b/source/index.rst index 8722694..186498f 100644 --- a/source/index.rst +++ b/source/index.rst @@ -51,5 +51,4 @@ Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. chapter2-uefi chapter3-secureworld chapter4-firmware-media - appendix-a-uefi-features references -- 2.13.0

6 years, 5 months

New series of EBBR meetings

by Grant Likely

Hi all, I've created a new series of EBBR meetings; this time biweekly on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month based on the feedback I received on the Doodle poll. First meeting today and the one topic on the agenda is pickup up from where things were left off in December. Here are the dial-in details: - Online meeting: https://arm-onsite.webex.com/meet/gralik01 - Phone - Access code: 809 053 990 - 1-408-792-6300 Call-in toll number (US/Canada) - 1-877-668-4490 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada) - 44-203-478-5285 Call-in toll number (UK) - 08-002061177 Call-in toll-free (UK) More access numbers: https://arm-onsite.webex.com/cmp3300/webcomponents/widget/globalcallin/glob… IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

6 years, 5 months

[PATCH 0/4] Updates for EBBR v0.8 (maybe v1.0-rc)

by Grant Likely

I've made the following changes to EBBR to prepare for the v1.0 release. Most of these are editorial. The biggest change is the SetVariable() language which has already been discussed. Cheers, g.

6 years, 5 months

Re: Question: how to identify vendor firmware setups conflicting with disk partitions?

by Steve McIntyre

Hi Grant! [ Re-adding the CC to the list, I guess you dropped that by mistake ] On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 05:22:10PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >On 28/02/2019 17:12, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> I'm now looking at updating our logic on armhf/arm64 to do something >> like: >> >> if (booted via UEFI); then >> if (booted using U-Boot); then >> echo MBR >> else >> echo GPT >> fi >> else >> echo MBR >> fi >> >> but I'll need to find a sane way to detect U-Boot->UEFI boot. For now >> I'm looking at parsing dmesg output to look for something like >> >> [ 0.000000] efi: EFI v2.70 by Das U-Boot >> >> but I'm hoping for a better solution. This is also somewhat assuming >> that detecting U-Boot in the boot chain is a valid indicator for >> "unsafe location for firmware", but I'm not sure of a better way! > >I really want to avoid installers checking for specific firmware >implementations. The interface is UEFI regardless of U-Boot or tianocore >as the implementation. > >It also isn't actually about U-Boot. It's a limitation of the boot >masked ROM in the SoC that do not respect partitioning schemes. In these >cases both Tianocore and U-Boot have the same problem, and >repartitioning the device will blow away the bootloader. ACK - I've acknowledged that above. I've personally seen very few devices with Tianocore firmware at arbitrary locations, but lots with U-Boot. That seems to be the pattern. Do you have any common examples for Tianocore? >Perhaps there should be a property in the DT that lists the reserved >blocks on the SD or eMMC device. Maybe, but that bird has already flown surely? I'm talking about existing devices that vendors are not updating. >Or, maybe, we can define an information block that has an >identifiable header+checksum which can tell the OS which blocks are >occupied by firmware. If it exists somewhere within the first few >blocks then the partitioning tool could scan for it before >repartitioning. It could also be embedded into the firmware image >that gets dd'ed onto the media. Maybe we can scan the first few sectors of a disk to see if it has any other recognisable strings, then. I'm trying to work out a safe(!) yet also reasonably easy way for partitioning to work. Our existing code isn't working, and we are already over-writing firmware stored in dumb places. :-( Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre(a)linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs

6 years, 5 months

New series of EBBR meetings

by Grant Likely

I accidentally deleted the old series of EBBR meetings. However, that's okay since other meetings have moved around and it is time to review the meeting time anyway. I think we should switch to bi-weekly meetings alternating with the LEDGE SC meeting. Here is a doodle poll for a new meeting time: https://doodle.com/poll/359273ngta74rqut I'll set up a new meeting series about this time next week. Please let me know what times work for you. Thanks, g.

6 years, 5 months

Question: how to identify vendor firmware setups conflicting with disk partitions?

by Steve McIntyre

Hi folks, I've just been having a discussion with folks about installing Debian on an arm64 device. Another developer is booting via U-Boot with UEFI and things are working OK, except... The intructions for their board [0] include writing things raw to both sector 0 and sector 1 of an SD card, meaning that both MBR and GPT partitioning schemes are likely to break. Ugh. :-/ So, I have two (related) worries: 1. At the moment in Debian, our installer will default to using GPT for arm64 machines (where disks are not already formatted). That was fine when we were expecting server systems booting using edk2, but it looks like that's now a dangerous assumption, as more and more U-Boot devices are out there which will be wanting to load firmware from low-numbered LBAs. 2. I'm just in the middle of adding EFI armhf installer support, and that is also (currently) defaulting to GPT if you've booted via EFI. This is fine for VMs booted using a 32-bit Arm build of edk2, but also it's starting to look like a bad option for real boards booting using U-Boot's EFI support (for similar reasons). The "Firmware Storage" section of EBBR v0.6 touches on this and describes how to store firmware in a safer manner, but obviously (some/many) vendors are not following the spec thus far. What are other folks doing in this area? How do you recognise which devices it's safe to use GPT on, for example? I'm now looking at updating our logic on armhf/arm64 to do something like: if (booted via UEFI); then if (booted using U-Boot); then echo MBR else echo GPT fi else echo MBR fi but I'll need to find a sane way to detect U-Boot->UEFI boot. For now I'm looking at parsing dmesg output to look for something like [ 0.000000] efi: EFI v2.70 by Das U-Boot but I'm hoping for a better solution. This is also somewhat assuming that detecting U-Boot in the boot chain is a valid indicator for "unsafe location for firmware", but I'm not sure of a better way! [0] http://share.loverpi.com/board/libre-computer-project/libre-computer-board-… Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre(a)linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs

6 years, 6 months

Re: [RFC v9 2/5] dt-bindings: pstore-block: new support for blkoops

by Rob Herring

+boot-architecture list On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 07:52:47PM +0800, liaoweixiong wrote: > Create DT binding document for blkoops. > > Signed-off-by: liaoweixiong <liaoweixiong(a)allwinnertech.com> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..5462915 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pstore/blkoops.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ > +Blkoops oops logger > +=================== > + > +Blkoops provides a block partition for oops, excluding panics now, so they can > +be recovered after a reboot. > + > +Any space of block device will be used for a circular buffer of oops records. > +These records have a configurable size, with a size of 0 indicating that they > +should be disabled. > + > +At least one of "block-device" and "total_size" must be set. > + > +At least one of "dmesg-size" or "pmsg-size" must be set non-zero. > + > +Required properties: > + > +- compatible: must be "blkoops". > + > +Optional properties: > + > +- block-device: The block device to use. Most of the time, it is a partition of > + device. If block-device is NULL, no block device is effective > + and the data will be lost after rebooting. > + It accept the following variants: > + 1) <hex_major><hex_minor> device number in hexadecimal > + represents itself no leading 0x, for example b302. > + 2) /dev/<disk_name> represents the device number of disk > + 3) /dev/<disk_name><decimal> represents the device number of > + partition - device number of disk plus the partition number > + 4) /dev/<disk_name>p<decimal> - same as the above, that form is > + used when disk name of partitioned disk ends on a digit. > + 5) PARTUUID=00112233-4455-6677-8899-AABBCCDDEEFF representing > + the unique id of a partition if the partition table provides > + it. The UUID may be either an EFI/GPT UUID, or refer to an > + MSDOS partition using the format SSSSSSSS-PP, where SSSSSSSS > + is a zero-filled hex representation of the 32-bit > + "NT disk signature", and PP is a zero-filled hex > + representation of the 1-based partition number. > + 6) PARTUUID=<UUID>/PARTNROFF=<int> to select a partition in > + relation to a partition with a known unique id. > + 7) <major>:<minor> major and minor number of the device > + separated by a colon. No. I didn't suggest to go look at PARTUUID to copy it into the binding, but rather to point out that the kernel can already mount by UUID. Specifying the UUID in DT is also not what I suggested. My suggestion is to define a known UUID so that the kernel (and bootloaders, userspace, the world) can just know the UUID. Just like the EFI system partition. Now this means you have to get it defined in the UEFI specification (or maybe EBBR[1]). If you want help with how to do that, the boot-architecture list is a good place to start. major/minor numbers are a Linux thing, so they don't go in DT. /dev/* is Linux thing, so it doesn't go in DT. You can always define all these parameters as kernel command line options and avoid DT. That would also make this work on *all* systems, not just DT based systems. (Though I still believe that the partition should be discoverable.) Rob [1] https://github.com/ARM-software/ebbr

6 years, 6 months

[PATCH] Simplify SetVariable() language

by Grant Likely

Instead of masking out GetVariable() when SetVariable() isn't available during runtime services, simplify the requirements without losing the ability to read variables by using the RuntimeServicesSupported variable from UEFI v2.8.1 (unreleased); Mantis issue 1961. Peter Jones's earlier patch also specified a Capsule-on-Disk format for updating variables that the OS could store in the ESP. I've not included that specification in this patch as it is logically a separate feature. It may reappear in a separate patch at a later date, or it may get proposed for inclusion in the UEFI spec proper. Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely(a)arm.com> Cc: Peter Jones <pjones(a)redhat.com> --- source/chapter2-uefi.rst | 17 ++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst index 379f0ca..4f74d43 100644 --- a/source/chapter2-uefi.rst +++ b/source/chapter2-uefi.rst @@ -201,14 +201,15 @@ variables stored on shared media. [#OPTEESupplicant]_ If a platform does not implement modifying non-volatile variables with SetVariable() after ExitBootServices(), -then it must not provide any variable operations after ExitBootServices(). -Firmware shall return EFI_UNSUPPORTED for any call to GetVariable(), -GetNextVariableName() and SetVariable(). -Firmware shall not emulated non-volatile variables using volatile RAM cache. +then firmware shall return EFI_UNSUPPORTED for any call to SetVariable(), +and must advertise that SetVariable() isn't available during runtime services +via the "RuntimeServicesSupported" variable as defined in UEFI version 2.8.1. +EFI applications can read RuntimeServicesSupported to determine if calls +to SetVariable() need to be performed before calling ExitBootServices(). -.. note:: The behaviour when SetVariable() is not supported during runtime - services is still under discussion and subject to change. - Do not make any firmware implementation decisions based on this text yet. +Even when SetVariable() is not supported during runtime services, firmware +should cache variable names and values in EfiRuntimeServicesData memory so +that GetVariable() and GetNextVeriableName() can behave as specified. .. [#OPTEESupplicant] It is worth noting that OP-TEE has a similar problem regarding secure storage. @@ -216,5 +217,7 @@ Firmware shall not emulated non-volatile variables using volatile RAM cache. storage operations on behalf of OP-TEE. The same solution may be applicable to solving the UEFI non-volatile variable problem, but it requires additional OS support to work. + Regardless, EBBR compliance does not require SetVariable() support + during runtime services. https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/blob/master/documentation/secure_storage… -- 2.13.0

6 years, 8 months

← Newer
1
...
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
...
65
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

boot-architecture