On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 17:21, ron minnich rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
Loic, it is wonderful to have you here. I think in the OCP OSF call today (to which you are now invited, if you want; let me know -- same applies to everyone here who's interested in open compute platform open *system* firmware standard)
(ahhhh I feel bad ;-)
Documenting ABIs is problematical, since not all OSF systems will be following an existing ABI. That is a box best not opened. Most of the OSF participants use both UEFI and LinuxBoot, and it's hard to imagine two more incompatible systems.
Ampere is proposing we standardize HOBs (DRAM information...) when
launching U-Boot. I am advocating to use this for any non-secure firmware, be it EDK2, U-Boot or LinuxBoot. Adopting EDK2 HOBs or similar (see Platform Initialization chapter 5) would greatly simplify things and further reduce non value bringing platform specific code. It is also helping making the TrustZone a much simpler place to organize. And it is also architecture agnostic.
PIcking the size of flash is a hard one too, and it varies a lot depending
on the system, so we felt it best not to bring that in. Intel, AMD, Power, ARM -- all have widely varying and incompatible issues.
I wonder if I can interest you (and others) in a workshop I'm trying to put together for linuxcon dublin end of september.
Please count me in.
LinuxBoot requires a solid kexec, and kexec is not quite there yet. Our goal is to improve the situation with kexec. An ancillary goal is to get the various distros to ship images that are "kexec friendly". We did talk to Mark about all this a few years ago but it was a bit too early. I think what with systemd starting to look at kexec, now it's time.
I'd like to get canonical, red hat, and whoever else is interested in a room and hammer out what we need to do to make kexec solid. As of now it's too flaky.
I'll pass the word...
interested? Linux Conf sounds more and more like it will happen, and it would be good to get people in the room and figure out kexec -- its current capabilities, how its being used (e.g. Google has deployed LinuxBoot with kexec at scale), its limits, and how to make distros "kexec friendly"
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 1:19 AM Loïc Minier loic.minier@canonical.com wrote:
Hi Ron,
Apologies; I clearly hadn't read enough. I just recently joined the OCP-OSF project's mailing-list as I wasn't aware of the effort before,
and
had only read the welcome web page. I've now read through the Governance, Charter and Transition schedule docs, and also saw the Pilot's draft Checklist gdoc and spreadsheet – I can see this overlaps with existing sections and topics. (Are there other consolidated docs or efforts you'd encourage new contributors to checkout?)
I did see the idea of keys in the Ownership section of the Checklist doc. Is there a good place to document supported ABIs (I understand the spirit is not to mandate particular interfaces, but it would still make sense to document them)?
There are some questions around existing artifacts, would that be the right place to document maximum capacity (eg size of flash)?
Thanks,
- Loïc
On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 at 07:59, ron minnich rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
I do wonder if you have read the OSF doc. That was a lot of work over a near 3 year period, and your doc looks like the very early drafts of
that
doc. I think it would pay to take a look.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:52 PM Loïc Minier <loic.minier@canonical.com
wrote:
Hi!
Sorry for the late reply, here's a draft the concepts from this thread and link them to sustainability levels:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cihVQPf377c2W5ElT4ouvVx6VpDTE6mrAIbakKCE...
(doc open for comments / suggestions from anyone, ping me if you need write access)
Best,
- Loïc Minier
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 13:45, François Ozog francois.ozog@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 13:32, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 09.04.21 08:59, François Ozog wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 19:34, Heinrich Schuchardt <
xypron.glpk@gmx.de
> mailto:xypron.glpk@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 4/8/21 10:46 AM, François Ozog wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 10:30, Loïc Minier > <loic.minier@canonical.com mailto:loic.minier@canonical.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi François-Frédéric, > >> > >> Like you, I'm particularly keen to connect the dots between > environmental > >> sustainability and open source software. > >> > >> I love your levels, basically recognizing that if the firmware is not > >> updatable or maintained anymore, or if it can't fulfill its > function by > >> running TAs, the whole system might be rendered obsolete. > >> > >> There are two other interesting dimensions I would propose
to
> consider: > >> - resource requirements of the firmware and payloads such as TAs > – the > >> firmware/system is rendered obsolete because resources available > for the > >> firmware are insufficient, e.g. TAs or binaries grow in size or > number or > >> runtime requirements to the point that the device can't function > >> > > I missed that one even though we have a call on this topic today > (see on > > trusted-substrate.org http://trusted-substrate.org) on how to > make TA lifecycle much easier, starting > > with Secure DRAM size selection by product maker. There is also an > > ownership transfer discussion that I had with an industrial player > that > > would allow formalization of who can change what "downstream" (here > > downstream is relative to software chain that starts with firmware > and ends > > with applications) > > > >> - architectural requirements – the firmware or its payloads start > >> requiring recent hardware features or a newer API; this is likely > going to > >> bring some tradeoffs in security as the bar keeps getting higher; > this > >> could connect to your level 2 > >> > >> Good point. That said, this should not imply an ACPI HAL
like
> effort by > > the firmware. In addition, I remember the Panasonic CTO
calling
> for using > > virtio as a HAL even on non-virtualized environments. Would this > be part of > > the picture? > > > >> I'd love to help draft language or with recommendations around this! > >> > >> That would be great: what about you share a Google doc and
we
> discuss it > > here? > > > >> Best, > >> - Loïc Minier > >> > >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 10:12, François Ozog > <francois.ozog@linaro.org mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> even though I am not an "ecology activist", sustainability is a > topic dear > >>> to me. And it can translate into firmware world... So I am > targeting this > >>> message to the audience of the two firmware communities I know > and hope it > >>> is okay to do so. > >>> > >>> March 2021 was a big date for Open Source Firmware > >>> https://www.opencompute.org/projects/open-system-firmware https://www.opencompute.org/projects/open-system-firmware>: that > was the > >>> deadline to get > >>> > >>> " > >>> Owners must be able to change firmware and share it -- including any > >>> binary > >>> components -- with other owners. Starting in March, 2021,
OCP
> badging for > >>> servers will require that systems support OSF. > >>> " > >>> > >>> That's a big step towards sustainability in the OCP world. > >>> > >>> More generally, we should have the capacity to characterize firmware > >>> sustainability for post official firmware End Of Life. > >>> > >>> What about the following : > >>> > >>> level 0: system cannot evolve or be updated. > >>> > >>> level 1: the system can be updated to a bootable minimal > functionality > >>> with > >>> open community effort.It may lack some features. For instance, > you can > >>> still look at your TV but lose Netflix 4K because the
owners
(in OCP > >>> sense) > >>> cannot get a signed Netflix TA (either updated or not). > >>> > >>> level 2: the TAs and other binaries can be made available > (signed) to the > >>> ones maintaining open source firmware projects (TF-A,
OP-TEE,
> U-Boot...). > >>> For instance, owners (in the OCP sense) can get the updated > Netflix TA > >>> binary (updated or not) and sign it for inclusion. > > Getting a binary now does not mean that you will get a new compatible > binary in two years after a grave security bug has been discovered in > the WiFi firmware or Netflix uses a new encoding scheme. > > So isn't level 2 still on the path to obsolescence? > > I think I had the unconscious idea to have the equivalent of Google > Project Trebble > <
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3306443/what-is-project-treble-android...
>: > the binary blobs are part of an ABI framework so that the project
can
> evolve but still get access to old "stuff".
This project is about supporting SoCs for four years and after that comes obsolescence.
If you are buying a mid-range phone without the newest SoC, it boils down to the two years obsolescence of Android One phones which is a shame.
> There is nothing such as a free meal: blobs are inevitable and we don't > want proliferation of ABI that could slow innovation. > In other words, can we think of a Trebble for firmware that would allow > evolution of the core open source projects and still be able to use old > blobs? > Making a mind experiment with DRAM initialization binary and a TF-A API > change (which happened last year I think on my platform of
interest),
> that change could have been made in such a way to maintain compatibility > with the old API. > Is it something thinkable in the U-Boot context ?
Looking through the U-Boot code I found the "NXP PFE Ethernet driver" for LS1012A boards that uses a firmware blob. Of course using such a blob does not stop us from developing the rest of U-Boot. Yet obsolescence for LS1018A boards will be dictated by the availability
of
updates for NXP's blob and license conditions.
In a Trebble for Android world: there is an immutable ABI for
ethernet
driver (the most complex to accept has been on the GPU side). So you
can
update the entire system and still use an old blob. In a Trebble ofr U-Boot, we would define a similar immutable ABI for ethernet. Should NXP have compatible licensing conditions, some systems could be sustainability "level 2". (The goal is not to have all products be level 2 or 3, the goal is to understand what is possible with a particular product, and may be
make a
buying decision)
Best regards
Heinrich > > >>> > >>> level 3: all firmware components are open source and can thus be > community > >>> maintained. > >>> > >>> I think : > >>> Level 2 is the right balance between business value and > "ecological" goal > >>> of sustainability. > >>> Level 3 is not mandatory and not the ultimate goal. > >>> > >>> Is this a good way to characterize sustainability? > >>> How to make at least level 2 happen ? > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> FF > >>> -- > >>> François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing > Group* > >>> T: +33.67221.6485 > >>> francois.ozog@linaro.org mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org
|
> Skype: ffozog > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> boot-architecture mailing list > >>> boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org > mailto:boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org > >>>
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
> https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Loïc Minier > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > François-Frédéric Ozog | /Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing
Group/
> T: +33.67221.6485 > francois.ozog@linaro.org mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog > >
-- François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog
-- Loïc Minier
-- Loïc Minier _._,_._,_
Groups.io Links:
You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#137) <
https://OCP-All.groups.io/g/OCP-OSF/message/137%3E
| Reply To Group <
OCP-OSF@OCP-All.groups.io?subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BOCP-OSF%5D%20Firmware%3A%20Sustainability%20vs%20planned%20obsolescence
| Reply To Sender <
loic.minier@canonical.com?subject=Private:%20Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BOCP-OSF%5D%20Firmware%3A%20Sustainability%20vs%20planned%20obsolescence
| Mute This Topic https://groups.io/mt/81937262/1492462 | New Topic https://OCP-All.groups.io/g/OCP-OSF/post Your Subscription https://OCP-All.groups.io/g/OCP-OSF/editsub/1492462
| Contact
Group Owner OCP-OSF+owner@OCP-All.groups.io | Unsubscribe <
https://OCP-All.groups.io/g/OCP-OSF/leave/3416184/1492462/253461219/xyzzy%3E
[rminnich@gmail.com] _._,_._,_
boot-architecture mailing list boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture