[edk2-devel] [PATCH 00/24] CryptoPkg/openssl: update openssl submodule to v3.0
Andrew Fish via groups.io
afish=apple.com at groups.io
Fri Jan 28 00:55:37 UTC 2022
Very cool idea but …..
1) We don’t always use the systems native compiler and sometimes we use a cross compiler so making assumptions about system libs is not always valid.
On a Mac with Xcode clang I’ve got full SysV ABI libs (not supper helpful for EFI), but not EFI/MSFT x86_64 ABI. For bonus point i386 has been obsoleted in Xcode.
~/work/Compiler/Math>cat hello.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
unsigned long long ulldiv = ((unsigned long long) argc)/3;
// prevent the optimizer to calculate result at build time
printf("ulldiv %lld\n", ulldiv );
}
~/work/Compiler/Math>clang hello.c
Thus I can link Sys V ABI with the wrong calling convention for EFI.
But for the EFI ABIs not so much….
~/work/Compiler/Math>clang -target x86_64-pc-win32-macho hello.c
clang: warning: unable to find a Visual Studio installation; try running Clang from a developer command prompt [-Wmsvc-not-found]
hello.c:1:10: fatal error: 'stdio.h' file not found
#include <stdio.h>
^~~~~~~~~
1 error generated.
~/work/Compiler/Math>clang -arch i386 hello.c
ld: warning: The i386 architecture is deprecated for macOS (remove from the Xcode build setting: ARCHS)
ld: warning: ignoring file /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX12.0.sdk/usr/lib/libSystem.tbd, missing required architecture i386 in file /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX12.0.sdk/usr/lib/libSystem.tbd (3 slices)
Undefined symbols for architecture i386:
"_printf", referenced from:
_main in hello-380c0a.o
ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture i386
clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)
2) Are these system libs architecturally defined to be free standing? Can they make assumptions about the runtime? If so seems like they could do random bad things to make them not work in EFI like a system call or make other assumptions like writing to a magic address to generate a trap. Just inspecting them tells us the implementation, not the architecture of the lib.
3) Are the paths to these libs architectural or are they arbitrary implementation that is normal abstracted by how the compiler is released? Could some packaging change break the magic paths to libs?
4) I asked the Xcode/clang team a long time ago what to do for free standing match and they pointed me at some open source implementation of these math libs that had been implemented in C. They did not want us using their libs that shipped with macOS.
For the GCC/clang tools seems like we are better off just providing the code.
We have magic for compiler specific inline assembly
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdePkg/Library/BaseLib/Ia32/GccInline.c
We have magic to abstract some compiler intrinsics today:
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdePkg/Library/BaseIoLibIntrinsic/IoLibMsc.c
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdePkg/Library/BaseIoLibIntrinsic/IoLibGcc.c
While we try to avoid it when at all possible the build system does support doing things differently for different compilers if we have to
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdePkg/Library/BaseIoLibIntrinsic/BaseIoLibIntrinsic.inf#L38
[Sources.IA32]
IoLibGcc.c | GCC
IoLibMsc.c | MSFT
IoLib.c
Thanks,
Andrew Fish
PS The compiler still works like you think we just don’t have the libs you might need.
~/work/Compiler/Math>cat i386.c
typedef unsigned long long UINT64;
UINT64
main2(int argc, char **argv)
{
UINT64 ulldiv = ((UINT64) argc)/3;
// prevent the optimizer to calculate result at build time
return ulldiv;
}
~/work/Compiler/Math>clang -arch i386 i386.c -S
~/work/Compiler/Math>cat i386.S
.section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions
.build_version macos, 12, 0 sdk_version 12, 0
.globl _main2 ## -- Begin function main2
.p2align 4, 0x90
_main2: ## @main2
.cfi_startproc
## %bb.0:
pushl %ebp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
.cfi_offset %ebp, -8
movl %esp, %ebp
.cfi_def_cfa_register %ebp
subl $24, %esp
movl 12(%ebp), %eax
movl 8(%ebp), %eax
movl 8(%ebp), %ecx
movl %ecx, %edx
sarl $31, %edx
movl %esp, %eax
movl %edx, 4(%eax)
movl %ecx, (%eax)
movl $0, 12(%eax)
movl $3, 8(%eax)
calll ___udivdi3
movl %edx, -4(%ebp)
movl %eax, -8(%ebp)
movl -8(%ebp), %eax
movl -4(%ebp), %edx
addl $24, %esp
popl %ebp
retl
.cfi_endproc
## -- End function
.subsections_via_symbols
PPS Fun story about ABI differences as the macOS i386 ABI requires 16-byte aligned stack accesses and that is more strict than EFI. Luckily it does not break EFI, but it means you can NOT call macOS code from EFI code. To make the emulator work on macOS I had to write assembly gaskets to align the stacks to make calls between the worlds possible. Not my finest hour but it works….
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/EmulatorPkg/Unix/Host/Ia32/Gasket.S
This crazy is an example about how assumptions that are not EFI centric can leak into the generic libs produced for the compiler.
> On Jan 27, 2022, at 2:26 PM, Kilian Kegel <KILIAN_KEGEL at OUTLOOK.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi Gerd,
>
> >* On my system the gcc intrinsics are only available as shared library,
> > so the "just unpack the lib and use the object files" idea is not
> > going to work.
> <D175366159184B98AC9B192EC485505B.png>
>
> This little C program makes an unsigned 64Bit division on PC compilers.
> Running a 32Bit code generator, it usually invokes an intrinsic function.
> MSFT: __aulldiv()
> GCC: __udivdi3()
>
> On my 32Bit Ubuntu standard installation I ran
> cc - Xlinker -Map=static.map hello.c -static
> cc -Xlinker -Map=shared.map hello.c
>
> The first .OBJ file mentioned in the .MAP file is in both cases:
> /usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/6/libgcc.a(_udivdi3.o)
> <DC03DFFFFFF14308B3A615804A1BF474.png>
>
> <377AC53F424C47F794809BA1A5953904.png>
>
> Then for each a.out I did:
> objdump -d a.out > static.dis
> objdump -d a.out > shared.dis
>
> In both cases the intrinsic function is fully linked into the .ELF executable.
> <B5A273DA2C3A4898BAEB0A354C667FE5.png>
>
> >so the "just unpack the lib and use the object files" idea is not
> >going to work.
> It seems to me that GNU holds the intrinsic functions in a separate library
> that can be used without any change, and is always correct by definition.
>
> For Microsoft that is only true when a SDK is installed (INT64.LIB).
> Without SDK the intrinsic functions were included in LIBCMT.LIB and
> must be isolated manually.
>
> Gerd, can you please doublecheck in your GCC build, if that works:
> add a 64Bit div to an x86 PEI module like:
> <500D8F2283CD4FAE9B0E45647823894A.png>
>
> add libgcc.a as a search library, adjust the conf\tools_def.txt like:
> DEBUG_GCCxx_IA32_DLINK_FLAGS = …predefined parameter … /usr/lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/6/libgcc.a
> to match your build system
> build the BIOS
> if the build gets ready, check the .MAP file whether it contains __udivdi3() or not
>
> >* I have my doubts that compiler's builtin libraries are optimized for
> > size, so I'd suspect we would see a noticeable size grow from that.
> Please check the size of __udivdi3() and whether the tianocore reimplementation is smaller or not
>
> If this works for all build platforms, independently of using the tianocore reimplementation or
> using the original compiler intrinsics, this is correct location to place the address of the intrinsic library.
> For all optimization modes, operation modes (64Bit/32Bit) the intrinsic library is available for the compiler.
>
> GNU lists the intrinsics:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Libgcc.html#Libgcc <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Libgcc.html#Libgcc>
>
> The intrinsic library belongs to the compiler not to the build system.
> If the build system changes from EDK2 to VS2022/MSBUILD, the compiler
> expects the same intrinsic library.
>
> Leave the intrinsic restrictions behind and just provide all required intrinsics the compiler needs
> to fulfil the C-Standard!
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Kilian
> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging/tree/CdePkg#cdepkgblog <https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging/tree/CdePkg#cdepkgblog>
>
> From: kraxel at redhat.com <mailto:kraxel at redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 12:02 PM
> To: Pedro Falcato <mailto:pedro.falcato at gmail.com>
> Cc: edk2-devel-groups-io <mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D <mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>; Kilian Kegel <mailto:kilian_kegel at outlook.com>; Yao, Jiewen <mailto:jiewen.yao at intel.com>; Sean Brogan <mailto:sean.brogan at microsoft.com>; Bret Barkelew <mailto:Bret.Barkelew at microsoft.com>; Wang, Jian J <mailto:jian.j.wang at intel.com>; Jiang, Guomin <mailto:guomin.jiang at intel.com>; Pawel Polawski <mailto:ppolawsk at redhat.com>; Lu, XiaoyuX <mailto:xiaoyux.lu at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 00/24] CryptoPkg/openssl: update openssl submodule to v3.0
>
> Hi,
>
> > I think adding intrinsic libraries is a mixed bag, for the following
> > reasons:
> >
> > 1) The intrinsic libraries are completely internal to the compilers.
> > Breaking down that toolchain/code barrier is not a good idea if we want the
> > project to compile using a good variety of compilers. The API is unstable
> > (as it's internal to the compiler + version) and sometimes undocumented;
> > while in reality the ABI doesn't really change (at least in the LLVM/GCC
> > world, not sure about the other compilers), it's something to consider.
>
> Yes. But apparently there is no way around them. We have them for arm.
> We have them for openssl. IntelUndiPkg in edk2-staging has some too
> (see IntelUndiPkg/LibC). And I wouldn't be surprised if there are more
> cases ...
>
> Having a policy to outlaw Intrinsics, but then hand out exceptions left
> and right doesn't look like a good idea to me. I think we should revisit
> that and accept that there simply is no way around Intrinsics in some
> cases.
>
> I think it makes sense to consolidate all the Intrinsics we have, i.e.
> move them over to MdePkg, make everybody use that, so we have only a
> single version to maintain.
>
> I think it also makes sense to restrict Intrinsics to the cases where we
> have no other option, to keep them as small as possible and also make it
> as easy as possible to maintain them.
>
> > 2) Linking the compiler's builtin libraries would fix our issues, except
> > that it doesn't work in cases where object files are tagged with ABI (such
> > as hard FP vs soft FP).
>
> Also:
>
> * On my system the gcc intrinsics are only available as shared library,
> so the "just unpack the lib and use the object files" idea is not
> going to work.
>
> * I have my doubts that compiler's builtin libraries are optimized for
> size, so I'd suspect we would see a noticeable size grow from that.
>
> * I'd very much prefer to continue with the current approach to have
> source code for the Intrinsics we need. In case we run into trouble
> things tend to be much easier to fix when you have the source code at
> hand. That's actually part of the open source success story.
>
> take care,
> Gerd
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows
>
> From: Kilian Kegel <mailto:KILIAN_KEGEL at OUTLOOK.COM>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 09:06 PM
> To: Kinney, Michael D <mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>; devel at edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; kraxel at redhat.com <mailto:kraxel at redhat.com>; Yao, Jiewen <mailto:jiewen.yao at intel.com>; Sean Brogan <mailto:sean.brogan at microsoft.com>; Bret Barkelew <mailto:Bret.Barkelew at microsoft.com>
> Cc: devel at edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; Wang, Jian J <mailto:jian.j.wang at intel.com>; Jiang, Guomin <mailto:guomin.jiang at intel.com>; Pawel Polawski <mailto:ppolawsk at redhat.com>; Lu, XiaoyuX <mailto:xiaoyux.lu at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 00/24] CryptoPkg/openssl: update openssl submodule to v3.0
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> thank you for your explanation. I understand all the technical aspects.
> But let me go into the details of my approach, that skips step 2) to 5)
> and adds step 1.5)
>
> >I think in practice, the intrinsic APIs we are seeing from use
> >of C code from submodules is a very limited set that do not
> >change across compiler releases,
> I totally agree. E.g INT64.LIB is the same since 2004 (WinXP DDK).
>
> But my perspective is different anyway:
> an intrinsic library belongs to a particular compiler/linker couple
> an intrinsic library does not belong to a UEFI tianocore or commercial BIOS feature set and should be managed
> outside from any EDK2 specific build description (.INF, .DSC)
>
> Let’s assume there is a C build environment fully installed, e.g. Microsoft VS2022, on an EDK2 build machine
> and all legal aspects were fulfilled.
>
> In that case the advanced developer is able to locate the library, that holds the intrinsic functions
> (intrinsic .OBJ modules) we needed to extract. (simply by checking the .MAP of a 32bit executable
> that pulls in the particular intrinsics)
> This is step 1)
>
> >One of the challenges is that compilers are allowed to add/remove/modify intrinsic APIs
> >across compiler releases. We would need to define a solution that will work if there are
> >these types of changes, which would potentially mean a different instance of the intrinsic
> >library for each tool chain tag.
>
> Here comes step 1.5):
> In case of Microsoft build it is LIBCMT.LIB that can be found when walking through the
> LIB environment string.
>
> It is easy to extend EDKSETUP.BAT to generate MSFTINTRINx86-32.LIB each time:
> locate LIBCMT.LIB
> extract the identified .OBJ modules from step 1: “LIB.EXE /extract:full_path_name.obj /out:name.obj LIBCMT.LIB”
> bind extracted .OBJ to the MSFTINTRINx86-32.LIB: “LIB.EXE *.obj /out:%CONF_PATH%\MSFTINTRINx86-32.lib”
>
> Now MSFTINTRINx86-32.LIB is located in the conf directory.
>
> Adjust the DLINK_FLAGS in tools_def.txt to hold MSFTINTRINx86-32.LIB as a search library:
>
> DEBUG_VS2015_IA32_DLINK_FLAGS = /NOLOGO /NODEFAULTLIB /IGNORE:4001 /OPT:REF /OPT:ICF=10 /MAP /ALIGN:32 /SECTION:.xdata,D /SECTION:.pdata,D /MACHINE:X86 /LTCG /DLL /ENTRY:$(IMAGE_ENTRY_POINT) /SUBSYSTEM:EFI_BOOT_SERVICE_DRIVER /SAFESEH:NO /BASE:0 /DRIVER /DEBUG %CONF_PATH%\MSFTINTRINx86-32.LIB
>
> RELEASE_VS2015_IA32_DLINK_FLAGS = /NOLOGO /NODEFAULTLIB /IGNORE:4001 /IGNORE:4254 /OPT:REF /OPT:ICF=10 /MAP /ALIGN:32 /SECTION:.xdata,D /SECTION:.pdata,D /MACHINE:X86 /LTCG /DLL /ENTRY:$(IMAGE_ENTRY_POINT) /SUBSYSTEM:EFI_BOOT_SERVICE_DRIVER /SAFESEH:NO /BASE:0 /DRIVER /MERGE:.rdata=.data %CONF_PATH%\MSFTINTRINx86-32.LIB
>
> From now on the intrinsics are available for all 32Bit components.
>
> With that procedure it is guaranteed by design, that the intrinsics are always available and match a particular compiler/linker release.
> it saves storage space since source code or binary modules don’t need to be kept
> because they are not kept, they don’t need maintainance
> no one needs to understand and document (in math details) the internals and the interface
> no one needs to test for the math functions, as it is necessary for tianocore re-implementations
> the compiler vendor itself is in charge in a court case
>
> The script below is a demonstration of the above arguments. It additionally adds memcpy() and memcmp() to MSFTINTRINx86-32.LIB,
> that the compiler sometimes needs, depending on optimization style, array size, instruction set, whatsoever …
> <A1B2261BD5014BBF968AF0AA25EF9349.png>
>
> I have checked some more .OBJ from LIBCMT.LIB and some of them (ftol3.obj to get __ltod3() long to double needed for difftime())
> seem not to be space optimized for BIOS usage, because the ftol3.obj holds multiple functions
> (and so violates the ODR one definition rule).
>
> But also such cases could be handled automatically by a script (I wrote a C program < 200 lines)
> that disassembles (using Microsoft DUMPBIN.EXE) the .OBJ, splits by simple text processing into
> single-function-.ASM-files that could be assembled back to multiple .OBJ of smaller code size.
>
> For this approach compiler, library manager, disassembler (DUMPBIN, OBJDUMP) were needed,
> that are available on all build machines by definition.
>
> Best regards
> Kilian
>
>
> From: Kinney, Michael D <mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 06:28 PM
> To: Kilian Kegel <mailto:kilian_kegel at outlook.com>; devel at edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; kraxel at redhat.com <mailto:kraxel at redhat.com>; Yao, Jiewen <mailto:jiewen.yao at intel.com>; Sean Brogan <mailto:sean.brogan at microsoft.com>; Bret Barkelew <mailto:Bret.Barkelew at microsoft.com>; Kinney, Michael D <mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>
> Cc: devel at edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; Wang, Jian J <mailto:jian.j.wang at intel.com>; Jiang, Guomin <mailto:guomin.jiang at intel.com>; Pawel Polawski <mailto:ppolawsk at redhat.com>; Lu, XiaoyuX <mailto:xiaoyux.lu at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 00/24] CryptoPkg/openssl: update openssl submodule to v3.0
>
> Hi Kilian,
>
> I am in favor of an intrinsic lib to improve the EDK II development environment.
>
> This has already been done for ARM compilers. The solution should mirror that approach.
>
> It would be best if we had source code (either in the edk2 repo or through a submodule) for
> the required intrinsic APIs. If source code is not possible and we have to use a binary, then
> that must be accessed through a submodule. The edk2 repo does not host binaries. We use
> repos such as edk2-non-osi for binaries.
>
> We also have to provide a solution that works with supported compilers (VS, GCC, CLANG, XCODE).
>
> One of the challenges is that compilers are allowed to add/remove/modify intrinsic APIs
> across compiler releases. We would need to define a solution that will work if there are
> these types of changes, which would potentially mean a different instance of the intrinsic
> library for each tool chain tag. I think in practice, the intrinsic APIs we are seeing from use
> of C code from submodules is a very limited set that do not change across compiler releases,
> so the maintenance of these intrinsic libs would be manageable.
>
> If we go down the source code path, we can break it up into the following tasks:
> Identify the specific subset of intrinsic APIs from each compiler that is required for the edk2 use cases.
> Obtain the function prototype and full documentation for each intrinsic API to support implementation and unit tests.
> Implement the APIs for all compilers.
> Implement unit tests for all APIs for all compilers using UnitTestFrameworkPkg unit tests.
> Update MdeLibs.dsc.inc with the NULL instances for the intrinsic libs
> Remove intrinsic APIs from EDK II modules that currently maintain their own implementations of intrinsic APIs.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
> From: Kilian Kegel <kilian_kegel at outlook.com <mailto:kilian_kegel at outlook.com>>
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:25 AM
> To: devel at edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney at intel.com <mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>>; kraxel at redhat.com <mailto:kraxel at redhat.com>; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao at intel.com <mailto:jiewen.yao at intel.com>>; Sean Brogan <sean.brogan at microsoft.com <mailto:sean.brogan at microsoft.com>>; Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew at microsoft.com <mailto:Bret.Barkelew at microsoft.com>>
> Cc: devel at edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang at intel.com <mailto:jian.j.wang at intel.com>>; Jiang, Guomin <guomin.jiang at intel.com <mailto:guomin.jiang at intel.com>>; Pawel Polawski <ppolawsk at redhat.com <mailto:ppolawsk at redhat.com>>; Lu, XiaoyuX <xiaoyux.lu at intel.com <mailto:xiaoyux.lu at intel.com>>
> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 00/24] CryptoPkg/openssl: update openssl submodule to v3.0
>
> The 64-bit integer math intrinsics and other intrinsic
> problems could be solved easily for ever:
>
> Putting all .OBJ files together from LIBCMT.H or INT64.LIB (for ll*.obj and ull*.obj only)
> ltod3.obj
> ftol2.obj
> lldiv.obj
> lldvrm.obj
> llmul.obj
> llrem.obj
> llshl.obj
> llshr.obj
> ulldiv.obj
> ulldvrm.obj
> ullrem.obj
> ullshr.obj
> memcmp.obj
> memcpycpy.obj
> and adjust for usability in EDK2 (remove / solve further internal dependencies or rewrite “*cpy” and “*cmp” functions)
> This is already done in IntrinsicLib.lib for some of the above functions, just complete this task!
> Put all the .OBJ into a e.g. edk2\Conf \“MSFTINTRINx86-32<compilerversion>.lib”
> Update the MSFT_DEF.txt tool chain definition path
> DEBUG_*_IA32_DLINK_FLAGS = %CONF_PATH%\ MSFTINTRINx86-32<compilerversion>.lib
> RELEASE_*_IA32_DLINK_FLAGS = %CONF_PATH%\ MSFTINTRINx86-32<compilerversion>.lib
> Resolve build conflicts with other existing intrinsic libraries from CryptoPkg, RedfishPkg… – remove these libraries
>
> From now on all existing 32Bit components have access to their own compiler intrinsics without
> touching any .INF file and the problem is instantly gone.
>
> Please do the same for
> GCCINTRINx86-32<compilerversion>.lib
>
> Leave the intrinsic restrictions behind and just provide all required intrinsics the compiler needs
> to fulfil the C-Standard!
>
> UEFI shall conform the execution environment described in the C Specification
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf#page=23 <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.open-std.org%2Fjtc1%2Fsc22%2Fwg14%2Fwww%2Fdocs%2Fn1256.pdf%23page%3D23&data=04%7C01%7C%7C1db233037ffb4811299008d9df47ba42%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637786321422685738%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=NuCQGfgDshlvQOKAQerAQaALk11LZA7YKY4eqSwotDg%3D&reserved=0>
> and shall not try to create a new restricted “UEFI execution environment”
> that currently prohibits some “expressions” (shift << >> , divide / % ) on some “data types” (64bit “long long”)
> but maybe in the future will prohibit some more “expressions” (logical AND &&, relational-expression < >) on
> still speculative “data types” (e.g. a 128bit “extended long”) or just because a new compiler
> (version) with some new optimization(ultra slow)/security(specdown/meltre) capabilities introduces
> some new intrinsic functions.
> Who knows…
>
> In contrast to:
> “I think we shouldn't add any intrinsics unless we are absolutely forced
> to. I do agree however that, for those intrinsics that we cannot at all
> avoid reimplementing, we should at least collect them in a common
> library.
> (In theory, I can also imagine reimplementing all possible intrinsics
> *if* the edk2 coding style spec / requirements are updated in parallel,
> permitting all new code to universally rely on the intrinsics, rather
> than the BaseLib / BaseMemoryLib functions.)”
> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1516#c2 <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.tianocore.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D1516%23c2&data=04%7C01%7C%7C1db233037ffb4811299008d9df47ba42%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637786321422685738%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=TV9hIhMuhINFVj8PSOQzMnGiknw3HO5zKm7ub5%2BcDow%3D&reserved=0>
>
> This mindset violates edk2 coding style spec too:
> https://edk2-docs.gitbook.io/edk-ii-c-coding-standards-specification/2_guiding_principles <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fedk2-docs.gitbook.io%2Fedk-ii-c-coding-standards-specification%2F2_guiding_principles&data=04%7C01%7C%7C1db233037ffb4811299008d9df47ba42%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637786321422685738%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=QVHxAAGiXywPxVI4wKzBtvbyfW16qvigghS1uwkIIcg%3D&reserved=0>
> Maintainability
> Extensibility
> Intellectual manageability
> Portability
> Reusability
> Standard techniques
>
> Have fun,
> Kilian
>
> From: Michael D Kinney <mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 05:39 PM
> To: kraxel at redhat.com <mailto:kraxel at redhat.com>; Yao, Jiewen <mailto:jiewen.yao at intel.com>; Sean Brogan <mailto:sean.brogan at microsoft.com>; Bret Barkelew <mailto:Bret.Barkelew at microsoft.com>; Kinney, Michael D <mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>
> Cc: devel at edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; Wang, Jian J <mailto:jian.j.wang at intel.com>; Jiang, Guomin <mailto:guomin.jiang at intel.com>; Pawel Polawski <mailto:ppolawsk at redhat.com>; Lu, XiaoyuX <mailto:xiaoyux.lu at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 00/24] CryptoPkg/openssl: update openssl submodule to v3.0
>
> Comments below.
>
> Mike
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kraxel at redhat.com <mailto:kraxel at redhat.com> <kraxel at redhat.com <mailto:kraxel at redhat.com>>
> > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:31 AM
> > To: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao at intel.com <mailto:jiewen.yao at intel.com>>
> > Cc: devel at edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney at intel.com <mailto:michael.d.kinney at intel.com>>; Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang at intel.com <mailto:jian.j.wang at intel.com>>; Jiang, Guomin
> > <guomin.jiang at intel.com <mailto:guomin.jiang at intel.com>>; Pawel Polawski <ppolawsk at redhat.com <mailto:ppolawsk at redhat.com>>; Lu, XiaoyuX <xiaoyux.lu at intel.com <mailto:xiaoyux.lu at intel.com>>
> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH 00/24] CryptoPkg/openssl: update openssl submodule to v3.0
> >
> > > > No changes in SEC and PEI.
> > > [Jiewen] Do you mean the Crypto consumer in PEI has no size difference? Such as
> > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/SecurityPkg/Tcg/Tcg2Pei <https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/SecurityPkg/Tcg/Tcg2Pei> ,
> > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/SecurityPkg/FvReportPei <https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/SecurityPkg/FvReportPei> ,
> > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/SignedCapsulePkg/Universal/RecoveryModuleLoadPei <https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/SignedCapsulePkg/Universal/RecoveryModuleLoadPei> linking
> > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/SecurityPkg/Library/FmpAuthenticationLibRsa2048Sha256 <https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/SecurityPkg/Library/FmpAuthenticationLibRsa2048Sha256>.
> >
> > PEI has this (OvmfIa32X64Pkg build):
> >
> > 7062 TpmMmioSevDecryptPei
> > 7830 StatusCodeHandlerPei
> > 7902 ReportStatusCodeRouterPei
> > 8470 FaultTolerantWritePei
> > 9734 SmmAccessPei
> > 11206 Tcg2ConfigPei
> > 11842 PeiVariable
> > 14730 Tcg2PlatformPei
> > 17274 TcgPei
> > 18438 S3Resume2Pei
> > 18682 DxeIpl
> > 18938 PcdPeim
> > 38014 CpuMpPei
> > 39554 PlatformPei
> > 45050 PeiCore
> > 49274 Tcg2Pei
> >
> > No size change for Tcg2Pei.
> >
> > The other modules are not there. Seems they are related to firmware
> > updates. We don't have that on ovmf as we can simply update the
> > firmware image files on the host machine ...
> >
> > Is there some target I could use to test-build those modules?
> >
> > > > INFO - OpensslLibCrypto.lib(rsa_lib.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external
> > > > symbol __allmul
> > > > INFO - OpensslLibCrypto.lib(rsa_lib.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external
> > > > symbol __aulldiv
> > > > INFO - OpensslLibCrypto.lib(bio_print.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external
> > > > symbol __aulldvrm
> > > > INFO - OpensslLibCrypto.lib(bio_print.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external
> > > > symbol __ftol2_sse
> > > >
> > > > Those symbols look like they reference helper functions to do 64bit math
> > > > on 32bit architecture. Any hints how to fix that?
> > > [Jiewen] Please add them to https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/CryptoPkg/Library/IntrinsicLib <https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/CryptoPkg/Library/IntrinsicLib>
> >
> > Any hints where I could get them? Given this happens on windows builds
> > it's probably somewhere in the microsoft standard C library? Is that
> > available as open source somewhere?
>
> Sean and Bret may be able to help with these.
>
> There is also a BZ on this topic.
>
> https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1516 <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1516>
>
> >
> > > > (3) Some NOOPT builds are failing due to the size growing ...
> > > [Jiewen] Size becomes big challenge...
> > > Have you tried to use https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/CryptoPkg/Driver <https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/tree/master/CryptoPkg/Driver> solution?
> >
> > Seems the idea is to have only one openssl copy in the dxe image by
> > calling a protocol instead of linking a lib. Makes sense.
> >
> > Is this documented somewhere? Is there some easy way to use that as
> > drop-in replacement? Or do we have to change all crypto users to call
> > the driver instead of linking the lib?
> >
> > take care,
> > Gerd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <shared.dis><shared.map><static.dis><static.map>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#86129): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/86129
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/87479913/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/edk2-devel-archive/attachments/20220127/ffcdf20c/attachment.htm>
More information about the edk2-devel-archive
mailing list