On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 19:53, ron minnich rminnich@gmail.com wrote:
You can see how quickly this gets complicated. It is why we tried to keep the OSF requirements as simple as possible.
The requirements, in their most basic form, allow owners of systems to modify firmware, install it, and share it. Open source is not required.
But for customers to install firmware is very hard in the x86 world nowadays. It's impossible on dell and HPE and many other systems, to name a few. If you modify one bit -- literally one bit -- most modern servers will fail to boot.
So going back to your levels:
level 0: system cannot evolve or be updated.
Level 0 is where we are today.
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).
This is not really appropriate for OCP, and nobody owning a server will want OSF if it means capability is lost. I don't think this is useful for OCP.
Indeed, here I am just trying to identify what can be the cases
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.
This doesn't really fit the x86 world either.
Not sure why. Could you elaborate? Here the main system firmware is open
source, access to binary elements is facilitated by the providers themselves. So it achieves the sustainability goal.
level 3: all firmware components are open source and can thus be community maintained.
The only system on which this works completely today is IBM Power.
Getting back to Open System Firmware:
So, to reiterate, Open System Firmware (NOT open source -- open system) is very simple.
How can I miss that one!!!
Owners have to be able to modify, install, and share their modified firmware.
Modification and installation require that the vendors sell hardware that allows it. Many x86 vendors can't do this today.
Sharing is purely a matter for lawyers, and should be possible.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 10:38 AM Heinrich Schuchardt 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
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) 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 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: 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?
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 | Skype: ffozog _______________________________________________ boot-architecture mailing list boot-architecture@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/boot-architecture
-- Loïc Minier
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#129):
https://OCP-All.groups.io/g/OCP-OSF/message/129
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/81937262/1492462 Group Owner: OCP-OSF+owner@OCP-All.groups.io Unsubscribe:
https://OCP-All.groups.io/g/OCP-OSF/leave/3416184/1492462/253461219/xyzzy [rminnich@gmail.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-