[edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform recovery

Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud samer.el-haj-mahmoud at arm.com
Thu Apr 29 14:50:17 UTC 2021


All,

Please take a moment to add any comments to this UEFI ECR BZ. This is needed to UEFI Forum can make a decision and close the ECR.
https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3336


Thanks,
--Samer



> -----Original Message-----
> From: devel at edk2.groups.io <devel at edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Samer
> El-Haj-Mahmoud via groups.io
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 3:48 PM
> To: devel at edk2.groups.io; pete at akeo.ie; Laszlo Ersek
> <lersek at redhat.com>; Leif Lindholm <leif at nuviainc.com>; Ni, Ray
> <ray.ni at intel.com>; zhichao.gao at intel.com
> Cc: Andrei Warkentin (awarkentin at vmware.com)
> <awarkentin at vmware.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianocore at kernel.org>;
> Andrew Fish <afish at apple.com>; Michael D Kinney
> <michael.d.kinney at intel.com>; Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang at intel.com>; Hao A
> Wu <hao.a.wu at intel.com>; Sunny.Hsuanwen.Wang at gmail.com; Samer El-
> Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud at arm.com>; Sunny Wang
> <Sunny.Wang at arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform
> recovery
>
> In order to make progress on this, I opened a code-first ECR  against the UEFI
> spec to clarify the language around the Boot#### options processing.
>
> Code First ECR: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3336
>
> Feedback on the proposed language is appreciated. Please provide the
> feedback directly in the BZ above.
>
> I will update the thread/BZ with results from USWG.
>
> Thanks,
> --Samer
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: devel at edk2.groups.io <devel at edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of Pete
> > Batard via groups.io
> > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 5:55 AM
> > To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <sunnywang at hpe.com>; Laszlo Ersek
> > <lersek at redhat.com>; Leif Lindholm <leif at nuviainc.com>;
> > devel at edk2.groups.io; Ni, Ray <ray.ni at intel.com>;
> > zhichao.gao at intel.com
> > Cc: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud at arm.com>; Andrei
> > Warkentin (awarkentin at vmware.com) <awarkentin at vmware.com>; Ard
> > Biesheuvel <ardb+tianocore at kernel.org>; Andrew Fish
> <afish at apple.com>;
> > Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney at intel.com>; Jian J Wang
> > <jian.j.wang at intel.com>; Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu at intel.com>;
> > Sunny.Hsuanwen.Wang at gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> > MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform
> > recovery
> >
> > Hi Sunny,
> >
> > I appreciate the input, but seeing that it is clear that no consensus
> > has been reached with regards to how the specs should be interpreted,
> > and that at least 4 separate people have now indicated that their
> > interpretation is different from the one you are putting forward (i.e.
> > you assert that the current code implementation is specs compliant
> > whereas we assert that the current code implementation is not specs
> > compliant), I believe that any further work on this will have to be
> > conditioned, first, by a specs update, that removes any ambiguity as
> > to the scope in which ReadyToBoot should apply.
> >
> > Until that has happened, it seems very pointless to me to start
> > talking possible code workarounds, because we still can't appear to be
> > in agreement as to whether the current code implementation of
> > ReadyToBoot is specs compliant or not.
> >
> > Now, even as I am the one proposing it, I'm afraid that I am not
> > planning to be the one opening a formal specs update request, since
> > there really is only so much more time I am willing to devote to this
> > matter. But I am hoping somebody else will.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > /Pete
> >
> > On 2021.02.22 09:28, Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > How about we signal ReadyToBoot ONLY for the default platform
> > > recovery
> > option?  The default platform recovery option here means the one
> > created by the code below in BdsEntry().
> > >    Status = EfiBootManagerInitializeLoadOption (
> > >               &PlatformDefaultBootOption,
> > >               LoadOptionNumberUnassigned,
> > >               LoadOptionTypePlatformRecovery,
> > >               LOAD_OPTION_ACTIVE,
> > >               L"Default PlatformRecovery",
> > >               FilePath,
> > >               NULL,
> > >               0
> > >               );
> > >
> > > In other words, we just need to slightly update Pete's patch as the
> > following (adding the code below to EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption()):
> > >
> > > +   if ((LoadOption->OptionType == LoadOptionTypePlatformRecovery)
> > > + &&
> > >            StrCmp (LoadOption ->Description, L"Default
> > > PlatformRecovery")) {
> > > +    //
> > > +    // Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we are
> about
> > to load and execute the boot option.
> > > +    //
> > > +    EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot ();
> > >
> > > +    //
> > > +    // Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled
> > > +    //
> > > +    REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE,
> > > + (EFI_SOFTWARE_DXE_BS_DRIVER |
> > > + EFI_SW_DXE_BS_PC_READY_TO_BOOT_EVENT));
> > > +  }
> > >
> > > I think the existing platforms that have their platform-specific
> > PlatformRecovery option may also do either of the following things to
> > make the system have no chance to load the default platform recovery
> > option because they do have a better way to recover the boot options:
> > >      1. Make their PlatformRecovery option have higher priority than
> > > the
> > default platform recovery option (has a lower number (####) than the
> > default platform recovery option)
> > >      2. Remove the default platform recovery option.
> > > Therefore, if we only signal ReadyToBoot for the default platform
> > > recovery
> > option, this may not affect the existing platforms because the code
> > may never be run on these platforms.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If the solution above doesn't work, I think the suggestion (Solution 2:
> > adding a new application as a PlatformRecovery####) I mentioned, in
> > the beginning, can be re-considered. The suggestion (solution 2) is
> > based on the thoughts below:
> > >       1.  I think that processing/evaluating the Boot#### can be
> > > interpreted as
> > the code after the comment " 6. Load EFI boot option to ImageHandle"
> > in
> > EfiBootManagerBoot() because these code are similar to the code in
> > EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption(). Based on this, I think our current
> > implementation is compliant with the description below in the UEFI
> > spec. Of course, we can improve our implementation by moving the code
> > for processing/evaluating the Boot#### from EfiBootManagerBoot() to
> > EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption() and make EfiBootManagerBoot() call
> > EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption().
> > >                “After all SysPrep#### variables have been launched
> > > and exited,
> > the platform shall notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event
> group
> > and begin to evaluate Boot#### variables with Attributes set to
> > LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT according to the order defined by
> BootOrder.
> > The FilePathList of variables marked LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall
> > not be evaluated prior to the completion of
> > EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group processing."
> > >       2. Moreover, it looks like we want to process
> > > PlatformRecovery####
> > option in the same way as Boot#### (do more things like setting
> > BootCurrent for PlatformRecovery####). If so, I would still prefer to
> > do what I suggest in the beginning to create a new application as a
> > new PlatformRecovery#### option for generating and launching a boot
> > option for the bootable image that is found by using a short-form File
> > Path Media Device Path so that we won't run into other difficulties.
> > At least, I already saw the difficulty of no connection between
> > BootCurrent variable and PlatformRecovery#### variable. Of course,
> > this application can be implemented without platform specific stuff,
> > so it can be commonly used by all platforms that need to load a boot image
> discovered by using short-form File Path Media Device Path.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Sunny Wang
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek at redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 10:26 PM
> > > To: Pete Batard <pete at akeo.ie>; Leif Lindholm <leif at nuviainc.com>;
> > > devel at edk2.groups.io
> > > Cc: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud at arm.com>; Andrei
> > > Warkentin (awarkentin at vmware.com) <awarkentin at vmware.com>;
> > Wang, Sunny
> > > (HPS SW) <sunnywang at hpe.com>; zhichao.gao at intel.com;
> > ray.ni at intel.com;
> > > Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianocore at kernel.org>; Andrew Fish
> > > <afish at apple.com>; Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney at intel.com>;
> > > Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang at intel.com>; Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu at intel.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> > > MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on platform
> > > recovery
> > >
> > > On 02/17/21 13:18, Pete Batard wrote:
> > >> Hi Leif,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for trying to resurrect this issue.
> > >>
> > >> At this stage, and despite some initial pushback in the bugzilla
> > >> ticket, I believe we can all agree with the consensus that
> > >> UefiBootManagerLib is not in fact specs-compliant and therefore
> > >> needs to be fixed, one way or another, to make it specs-compliant.
> > >>
> > >> My take on this is that, rather than propose a new patch, I'd much
> > >> rather have the current maintainers agree on the course of action
> > >> to fix the library (which, as Leif suggests, might very well be to
> > >> split the library into a specs-compliant and non-specs-compliant
> > >> version), as it would of course be better if the fix came from
> > >> people who have better understanding of the ramifications we might
> > >> face with trying to correct the current behaviour, and especially,
> > >> who have knowledge of the platforms that might be impacted from
> > >> making the lib specs-
> > compliant.
> > >>
> > >> Especially, I don't think that the patch that I originally
> > >> submitted for this, or the additional proposals we made, are still
> > >> receivable, as they seem to fall short of fixing the issue in a
> > >> manner that all platforms can be happy with. And that is why I'd
> > >> like to hear from the maintainers on what their preferred approach
> would be.
> > >
> > > A new Feature PCD could satisfy both sets of platforms, could it not?
> > >
> > > (Sorry if the original patch already had such a PCD; I don't
> > > remember.)
> > >
> > > Of course then we'd have a debate around the DEC default for the new
> > > PCD
> > > -- I'd say the default value of the PCD should match the
> > > spec-mandated
> > behavior.
> > >
> > > I don't recall any specifics, but a bug-compat pattern that's
> > > sometimes used
> > is this:
> > >
> > >    if (BugCompatEnabled) {
> > >      //
> > >      // do the right thing in the wrong place, for legacy platforms' sake
> > >      //
> > >     Foo ();
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    //
> > >    // Do some stuff.
> > >    //
> > >    Bar ();
> > >
> > >    if (!BugCompatEnabled) {
> > >      //
> > >      // do the right thing in the right place, for conformant platforms
> > >      //
> > >     Foo ();
> > >    }
> > >
> > > Not sure if it applies here.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Laszlo
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 2021.02.17 11:42, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > >>> Hi Pete, +various
> > >>>
> > >>> Resurrecting this old thread since Ard pointed out an issue I ran
> > >>> into myself had already been encountered by Pete.
> > >>> And the bugzilla ticket (directly below this reply) has had no
> > >>> relevant progress since August.
> > >>>
> > >>> Executive summary:
> > >>> The current UefiBootManagerLib implementation of the
> > >>> PlatformRecovery path does not notify the
> > EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event.
> > >>>
> > >>> The argument has been made that since changing this would affect
> > >>> an unnamed number of non-public platforms, the behaviour cannot be
> > >>> changed even though it violates the UEFI specification.
> > >>>
> > >>> I disagree with that statement. If we want to fork
> > >>> UefiBootManagerLib into a BrokenLegacyUefiBootManagerLib and an
> > >>> actually correct one, and have those platforms move to the
> > >>> BrokenLegacy variant, I'm OK with that.
> > >>>
> > >>> But using the default version should give specification-compliant
> > >>> behaviour.
> > >>>
> > >>> /
> > >>>       Leif
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 18:17:10 +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
> > >>>> Please note that I have created a bug report
> > >>>> (https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2831) to address
> > >>>> the non-compliance issue was raised during the course of the
> > >>>> discussion below.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> /Pete
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 2020.06.17 18:06, Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud wrote:
> > >>>>> I worked with Pete offline on this..
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This code seems to be violating the UEFI Spec:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/a56af23f066e2816c67b7c6e64d
> > >>>>> e
> > >>>>>
> >
> 7ddefcd70780/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmBoot.c#L176
> > >>>>> 3
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>      //
> > >>>>>      // 3. Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we
> are
> > >>>>> about to load and execute
> > >>>>>      //    the boot option.
> > >>>>>      //
> > >>>>>      if (BmIsBootManagerMenuFilePath (BootOption->FilePath)) {
> > >>>>>        DEBUG ((EFI_D_INFO, "[Bds] Booting Boot Manager Menu.\n"));
> > >>>>>        BmStopHotkeyService (NULL, NULL);
> > >>>>>      } else {
> > >>>>>        EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot();
> > >>>>>        //
> > >>>>>        // Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled
> > >>>>>        //
> > >>>>>        REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE,
> > >>>>> (EFI_SOFTWARE_DXE_BS_DRIVER |
> > >>>>> EFI_SW_DXE_BS_PC_READY_TO_BOOT_EVENT));
> > >>>>>        //
> > >>>>>        // 4. Repair system through DriverHealth protocol
> > >>>>>        //
> > >>>>>        BmRepairAllControllers (0);
> > >>>>>      }
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The UEFI Spec section 3.1.7 clearly states that Boot Options
> > >>>>> (and their FilePathList) *shall not* be evaluated prior to the
> > >>>>> completion of EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group
> > processing:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "After all SysPrep#### variables have been launched and exited,
> > >>>>> the platform shall notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT
> event
> > >>>>> group and begin to evaluate Boot#### variables with Attributes
> > >>>>> set to LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT according to the order
> defined
> > by
> > >>>>> BootOrder. The FilePathList of variables marked
> > >>>>> LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall not be evaluated prior to
> the
> > >>>>> completion of EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group
> > processing."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This is a prescriptive language that is stronger than the
> > >>>>> language in section 7.1 which defines the ReadyToBoot event
> > >>>>> group in a general way:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "EFI_EVENT_GROUP_RESET_SYSTEM
> > >>>>> This event group is notified by the system when ResetSystem() is
> > >>>>> invoked and the system is about to be reset. The event group is
> > >>>>> only notified prior to ExitBootServices() invocation."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The EDK2 code in the else block above (to call
> > >>>>> EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot() ) need to move before the code that
> > >>>>> is processing BootOption->FilePath. In fact, why is this
> > >>>>> signaling even a BootManager task? It should be a higher level
> > >>>>> BDS task (after processing SysPrp and before processing Boot
> > >>>>> options, per the
> > spec).
> > >>>>> This would be somewhere around
> > >>>>>
> > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/b15646484eaffcf7cc464fdea02
> > >>>>> 1
> > >>>>> 4498f26addc2/MdeModulePkg/Universal/BdsDxe/BdsEntry.c#L1007
> > >>>>> where SysPrep is processed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This should also take care of the issue Pete reported in this
> > >>>>> thread, without the need for explicitly signaling ReadyToBoot
> > >>>>> from PlatformRecovery (or changing the UEFI spec).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>> --Samer
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> From: devel at edk2.groups.io <devel at edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of
> > >>>>> Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud via groups.io
> > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:42 PM
> > >>>>> To: devel at edk2.groups.io; Andrei Warkentin
> > (awarkentin at vmware.com)
> > >>>>> <awarkentin at vmware.com>; Wang, Sunny (HPS SW)
> > <sunnywang at hpe.com>;
> > >>>>> pete at akeo.ie
> > >>>>> Cc: zhichao.gao at intel.com; ray.ni at intel.com; Ard Biesheuvel
> > >>>>> <Ard.Biesheuvel at arm.com>; leif at nuviainc.com; Samer El-Haj-
> > Mahmoud
> > >>>>> <Samer.El-Haj-Mahmoud at arm.com>
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> > >>>>> MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on
> > platform
> > >>>>> recovery
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The UEFI spec (3.1.7) says:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "After all SysPrep#### variables have been launched and exited,
> > >>>>> the platform shall notify EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT
> event
> > >>>>> group and begin to evaluate Boot#### variables with Attributes
> > >>>>> set to LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT according to the order
> defined
> > by
> > >>>>> BootOrder. The FilePathList of variables marked
> > >>>>> LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT shall not be evaluated prior to
> the
> > >>>>> completion of EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT event group
> > processing."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The way I read this, I expect ReadyToBoot to be signaled after
> > >>>>> SysPrep#### (if any) are processed, but before Boot#### are
> > >>>>> processed. Is my understanding correct that this language
> > >>>>> implies ReadyToBoot need to be signaled even if BootOrder does
> > >>>>> not contain any Boot#### options marked as
> LOAD_OPTION_CATEGORY_BOOT?
> > And if
> > >>>>> so, is EDK2 not doing this, which leads us to this patch
> > >>>>> (signaling it in PlatformRecovery?)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> From: mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io
> <mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>
> > On
> > >>>>> Behalf Of Andrei Warkentin via groups.io
> > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:37 PM
> > >>>>> To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <mailto:sunnywang at hpe.com>;
> > >>>>> mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io; mailto:pete at akeo.ie
> > >>>>> Cc: mailto:zhichao.gao at intel.com; mailto:ray.ni at intel.com; Ard
> > >>>>> Biesheuvel <mailto:Ard.Biesheuvel at arm.com>;
> > >>>>> mailto:leif at nuviainc.com
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> > >>>>> MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on
> > platform
> > >>>>> recovery
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks Pete.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I think the question I have, that I hope Tiano veterans can
> > >>>>> chime in, is whether we are doing the right thing, or if we
> > >>>>> should be overriding the boot mode? I.e. is it normal that we
> > >>>>> boot up in recovery until options are saved?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> A
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ________________________________________
> > >>>>> From: mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io
> <mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>
> > on
> > >>>>> behalf of Pete Batard via groups.io
> > >>>>> <mailto:pete=akeo.ie at groups.io>
> > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 11:34 AM
> > >>>>> To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <mailto:sunnywang at hpe.com>;
> > >>>>> mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io <mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io>
> > >>>>> Cc: mailto:zhichao.gao at intel.com <mailto:zhichao.gao at intel.com>;
> > >>>>> mailto:ray.ni at intel.com <mailto:ray.ni at intel.com>;
> > >>>>> mailto:ard.biesheuvel at arm.com
> <mailto:ard.biesheuvel at arm.com>;
> > >>>>> mailto:leif at nuviainc.com <mailto:leif at nuviainc.com>
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> > >>>>> MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on
> > platform
> > >>>>> recovery
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 2020.06.17 14:04, Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) wrote:
> > >>>>>> Thanks for checking my comments, Pete.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Or is the "one more" the issue, meaning that it would get
> > >>>>>>> signaled more than once?
> > >>>>>> [Sunny] Yeah, it would get signaled more than once if the
> > >>>>>> PlatformRecovery option (a UEFI application) calls
> > >>>>>> EfiBootManagerBoot() to launch the recovered boot option inside
> > >>>>>> of the application.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Okay.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> One element that I'm going to point out is that, with the
> > >>>>> current
> > >>>>> EDK2 code (i.e. without this proposal applied), and after a user
> > >>>>> goes into the setup to save their boot options in order for
> > >>>>> regular boot options to get executed instead of PlaformRecovery,
> > >>>>> the OnReadyToBoot event is actually called twice.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So my understanding is that, while we of course want to avoid
> > >>>>> this and any patch proposal should actively try to prevent it,
> > >>>>> it seems we already have behaviour in EDK2 that can lead to
> > >>>>> OnReadyToBoot being signalled more than once.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> At least the current Pi 4 platform does demonstrate this behaviour.
> > >>>>> For instance, if you run DEBUG, you will see two instances of:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>       RemoveDtStdoutPath: could not retrieve DT blob - Not Found
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> which is a one-instance message generated from the
> > >>>>> ConsolePrefDxe's
> > >>>>> OnReadyToBoot() call. I've also confirmed more specifically that
> > >>>>> OnReadyToBoot() is indeed called twice.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I don't recall us doing much of any special with regards to boot
> > >>>>> options for the Pi platform, so my guess is that it's probably
> > >>>>> not the only platform where OnReadyToBoot might be signalled
> > >>>>> more
> > than
> > >>>>> once, and that this might be tied to a default EDK2 behaviour.
> > >>>>> Therefore I don't see having a repeated event as a major deal
> > >>>>> breaker (though, again, if we can avoid that, we of course will
> > >>>>> want to).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I don't mind trying an alternative approach, but I don't
> > >>>>>>> understand how what you describe would help. Can you please
> be
> > >>>>>>> more specific about what you have in mind?
> > >>>>>> [Sunny] Sure. I added more information below. If it is still
> > >>>>>> not clear enough, feel free to let me know.
> > >>>>>>          1. Create a UEFI application with the code to signal
> > >>>>>> ReadyToBoot and pick /efi/boot/bootaa64.efi from either SD or
> > >>>>>> USB and run it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So that would basically be adding code that duplicates, in part,
> > >>>>> what Platform Recovery already does.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I have to be honest: Even outside of the extra work this would
> > >>>>> require, I don't really like the idea of having to write our own
> > >>>>> application, as it will introduce new possible points of
> > >>>>> failures and require extra maintenance (especially as we will
> > >>>>> want to be able to handle network boot and other options, and
> > >>>>> before long, I fear that we're going to have to write our own Pi
> > >>>>> specific boot manager). Doing so simply because the current
> > >>>>> Platform Recovery, which does suit our needs otherwise, is not
> > >>>>> designed to call ReadyToBoot does not seem like the best course
> > >>>>> of action in my book.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Instead, I still logically believe that any option that calls a
> > >>>>> boot loader should signal ReadyToBoot, regardless of whether it
> > >>>>> was launched from Boot Manager or Platform Recovery, and that it
> > >>>>> shouldn't be left to each platform to work around that.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Of course, I understand that this would require a specs change,
> > >>>>> and that it also may have ramifications for existing platforms
> > >>>>> that interpret the current specs pedantically. But to me,
> > >>>>> regardless of what the specs appear to be limiting it to right
> > >>>>> now, the logic of a "ReadyToBoot"
> > >>>>> event is that it should be signalled whenever a bootloader is
> > >>>>> about to be executed, rather than only when a bootloader
> > >>>>> happened to be launched through a formal Boot Manager option.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I would therefore appreciate if other people could weigh in on
> > >>>>> this matter, to see if I'm the only one who believes that we
> > >>>>> could ultimately have more to gain from signalling ReadyToBoot
> > >>>>> with PlatformRecovery options than leaving things as they stand
> > >>>>> right now...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>          2. Then, call EfiBootManagerInitializeLoadOption like
> > >>>>>> the following in a DXE driver or other places before "Default
> > >>>>>> PlatformRecovery" registration:
> > >>>>>>       Status = EfiBootManagerInitializeLoadOption (
> > >>>>>>                  &LoadOption,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 0,
> > >>>>>> -> 0 is the OptionNumber to let application be load before "
> > >>>>>> Default PlatformRecovery" option
> > >>>>>>                  LoadOptionTypePlatformRecovery,
> > >>>>>>                  LOAD_OPTION_ACTIVE,
> > >>>>>>                  L"Application for recovering boot options",
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> FilePath,
> > >>>>>> -> FilePath is the Application's device path,
> > >>>>>>                  NULL,
> > >>>>>>                  0
> > >>>>>>                  );
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> My reasoning is that, if PlatformRecovery#### can execute a
> > >>>>>>> regular bootloader like /efi/boot/boot####.efi from
> > >>>>>>> installation media, then it should go through the same kind of
> > >>>>>>> initialization that happens for a regular boot option, and
> > >>>>>>> that should include signaling the ReadyToBoot event.
> > >>>>>> [Sunny] Thanks for clarifying this, and Sorry about that I
> > >>>>>> missed your cover letter for this patch.  I was just thinking
> > >>>>>> that we may not really need to make this behavior change in
> > >>>>>> both EDK II code and UEFI specification for solving the problem
> > >>>>>> specific to the case that OS is loaded by "Default
> > >>>>>> PlatformRecovery" option,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The way I see it is that the Pi platform is unlikely to be the
> > >>>>> only one where PlatformRecovery is seen as a means to install an
> OS.
> > >>>>> Granted, this may seem like abusing the option, but since UEFI
> > >>>>> doesn't provide an "Initial OS Install" mode, I would assert
> > >>>>> that it as good a use of this option as any.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In other words, I don't think this improvement would only
> > >>>>> benefit the Pi platform.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> and I'm also not sure if it is worth making this change to
> > >>>>>> affect some of the system or BIOS vendors who have
> implemented
> > >>>>>> their PlatformRecovery option.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That's a legitimate concern, and I would agree the one major
> > >>>>> potential pitfall of this proposal, if there happens to exist a
> > >>>>> system where an OnReadyToBoot even before running the
> recovery
> > >>>>> option can have adverse effects.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I don't really believe that such a system exists, because I
> > >>>>> expect most recovery boot loaders to also work (or at least have
> > >>>>> been designed to
> > >>>>> work) as regular boot options. But I don't have enough
> > >>>>> experience with platform recovery to know if that's a correct
> assertion to make...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> If the alternative approach I mentioned works for you, I think
> > >>>>>> that would be an easier solution.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Right now, even as the patch proposal has multiple issues that
> > >>>>> require it to be amended (Don't signal ReadyToBoot except for
> > >>>>> PlatformRecovery
> > >>>>> + Prevent situations where ReadyToBoot could be signalled
> > >>>>> + multiple
> > >>>>> times) I still see it as both an easier solution than the
> > >>>>> alternative, as well as one that *should* benefit people who
> > >>>>> design Platform Recovery UEFI applications in the long run. So
> > >>>>> that is why I am still trying to advocate for it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But I very much hear your concerns, and I agree that specs
> > >>>>> changes are better avoided when possible.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thus, at this stage, even as I don't want to drag this
> > >>>>> discussion much further, I don't feel like I want to commit to
> > >>>>> one solution or the other before we have had a chance to hear
> > >>>>> other people, who may have their own opinion on the matter,
> express their views.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> /Pete
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>> Sunny Wang
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: Pete Batard [mailto:pete at akeo.ie]
> > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 6:59 PM
> > >>>>>> To: Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) <mailto:sunnywang at hpe.com>;
> > >>>>>> mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io
> > >>>>>> Cc: mailto:zhichao.gao at intel.com; mailto:ray.ni at intel.com;
> > >>>>>> mailto:ard.biesheuvel at arm.com; mailto:leif at nuviainc.com
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> > >>>>>> MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on
> > platform
> > >>>>>> recovery
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi Sunny, thanks for looking into this.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 2020.06.17 09:16, Wang, Sunny (HPS SW) wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Hi Pete.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Since the EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption is called by
> > >>>>>>> ProcessLoadOptions as well, your change would also cause some
> > >>>>>>> unexpected behavior like:
> > >>>>>>> 1. Signal one more ReadyToBoot for the PlatformRecovery option
> > >>>>>>> which is an application that calls EfiBootManagerBoot() to
> > >>>>>>> launch its recovered boot option.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I'm not sure I understand how this part is unwanted.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The point of this patch is to ensure that ReadyToBoot is
> > >>>>>> signalled for the PlatformRecovery option, so isn't what you
> > >>>>>> describe above exactly what we want?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Or is the "one more" the issue, meaning that it would get
> > >>>>>> signalled more than once?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 2. Signal ReadyToBoot for SysPrep#### or Driver#### that is
> > >>>>>>> not really a "boot" option.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Yes, I've been wondering about that, because BdsEntry.c's
> > >>>>>> ProcessLoadOptions(), which calls
> > >>>>>> EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption(),
> > >>>>>> mentions that it will load will load and start every
> > >>>>>> Driver####, SysPrep#### or PlatformRecovery####. But the
> > >>>>>> comment about the
> > >>>>>> while() loop in EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption() only mentions
> > >>>>>> PlatformRecovery####.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If needed, I guess we could amend the patch to detect the type
> > >>>>>> of option and only signal ReadyToBoot for PlatformRecovery####.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> To solve your problem, creating a PlatformRecovery option with
> > >>>>>>> the smallest option number and using it instead of default one
> > >>>>>>> (with short-form File Path Media Device Path) looks like a
> > >>>>>>> simpler solution.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I don't mind trying an alternative approach, but I don't
> > >>>>>> understand how what you describe would help. Can you please be
> > >>>>>> more specific about what you have in mind?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Our main issue here is that we must have ReadyToBoot signalled
> > >>>>>> so that the ReadyToBoot() function callback from
> > >>>>>> EmbeddedPkg/Drivers/ConsolePrefDxe gets executed in order for
> > the
> > >>>>>> boot loader invoked from PlatformRecovery####  to use a
> > >>>>>> properly initialized graphical console. So I'm not sure I quite
> > >>>>>> get how switching from one PlatformRecovery#### option to
> > >>>>>> another would improve things.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If it helps, here is what we currently default to, in terms of
> > >>>>>> boot options, on a Raspberry Pi 4 platform with a newly build
> > firmware:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [Bds]=============Begin Load Options Dumping
> > ...=============
> > >>>>>>        Driver Options:
> > >>>>>>        SysPrep Options:
> > >>>>>>        Boot Options:
> > >>>>>>          Boot0000: UiApp              0x0109
> > >>>>>>          Boot0001: UEFI Shell                 0x0000
> > >>>>>>        PlatformRecovery Options:
> > >>>>>>          PlatformRecovery0000: Default PlatformRecovery
> > >>>>>> 0x0001 [Bds]=============End Load Options
> > Dumping=============
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> With this, PlatformRecovery0000 gets executed by default, which
> > >>>>>> is what we want, since it will pick /efi/boot/bootaa64.efi from
> > >>>>>> either SD or USB and run it, the only issue being that, because
> > >>>>>> ReadyToBoot has not been executed, the graphical console is not
> > >>>>>> operative so users can't interact with the OS installer.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> So I'm really not sure how adding an extra PlatformRecovery####
> > >>>>>> would help. And I'm also not too familiar with how one would go
> > >>>>>> around to add such an entry...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> By the way, I also checked the UEFI specification. It looks
> > >>>>>>> making sense to only signal ReadyToBoot for boot option
> > (Boot####).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> That's something I considered too, but I disagree with this
> > >>>>>> conclusion.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> My reasoning is that, if PlatformRecovery#### can execute a
> > >>>>>> regular bootloader like /efi/boot/boot####.efi from
> > >>>>>> installation media, then it should go through the same kind of
> > >>>>>> initialization that happens for a regular boot option, and that
> > >>>>>> should include signalling the ReadyToBoot event.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If there was a special bootloader for PlatformRecovery#### (e.g.
> > >>>>>> /efi/boot/recovery####.efi) then I would agree with only
> > >>>>>> signalling ReadyToBoot for a formal Boot#### option. But that
> > >>>>>> isn't the case, so I think it is reasonable to want to have
> > >>>>>> ReadyToBoot also occur when a /efi/boot/boot####.efi
> bootloader
> > >>>>>> is executed from PlatformRecovery####., especially when we
> know
> > >>>>>> it can be crucial to ensuring that the end user can actually
> > >>>>>> use the
> > graphical console.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Therefore, your change may also require specification change.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Yes, I mentioned that in the cover letter for this patch
> > >>>>>>
> > (https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%
> > >>>>>> 2
> > >>>>>>
> >
> Fedk2.groups.io%2Fg%2Fdevel%2Fmessage%2F61327&data=02%7C01%
> > 7C
> > >>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>
> >
> warkentin%40vmware.com%7C5f90d077bc7949c1122f08d812dc48d3%7Cb391
> > 3
> > >>>>>> 8
> > >>>>>>
> >
> ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637280084611749324&sdat
> > a
> > >>>>>> =
> > >>>>>>
> >
> 2%2B%2FcvMkrmZGTRRLDGSuMsKbiyDOGtwYwZ7qSqMyMicc%3D&res
> > erved=0
> > >>>>>> ), which also describes the issue we are trying to solve in
> > >>>>>> greater details. This is what I wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> -
> > >>>>>> ------
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Note however that this may require a specs update, as the
> > >>>>>> current UEFI specs for EFI_BOOT_SERVICES.CreateEventEx() have:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>      >  EFI_EVENT_GROUP_READY_TO_BOOT
> > >>>>>>      >    This event group is notified by the system when the
> > >>>>>> Boot Manager
> > >>>>>>      >    is about to load and execute a boot option.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> and, once this patch has been applied, we may want to update
> > >>>>>> this section to mention that it applies to both Boot Manager
> > >>>>>> and Platform Recovery.
> > >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> -
> > >>>>>> ------
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Again, I don't have an issue with trying to use an alternate
> > >>>>>> approach to solve our problem (though I ultimately believe
> > >>>>>> that, if PlatformRecovery#### can launch a
> > >>>>>> /efi/boot/boot####.efi bootloader then we must update the
> specs
> > >>>>>> and the code to have ReadyToBoot also signalled then, because
> > >>>>>> that's the logical thing to do). But right now, I'm not seeing
> > >>>>>> how to achieve that when PlatformRecovery#### is the option
> > >>>>>> that is used to launch the OS installation the bootloader. So
> > >>>>>> if you can provide mode details on how exactly you think
> > >>>>>> creating an alternate PlatformRecovery option would help, I would
> appreciate it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> /Pete
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>> Sunny Wang
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>> From: mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io
> > [mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io]
> > >>>>>>> On Behalf Of Pete Batard
> > >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:56 PM
> > >>>>>>> To: mailto:devel at edk2.groups.io
> > >>>>>>> Cc: mailto:zhichao.gao at intel.com; mailto:ray.ni at intel.com;
> > >>>>>>> mailto:ard.biesheuvel at arm.com; mailto:leif at nuviainc.com
> > >>>>>>> Subject: [edk2-devel] [edk2][PATCH 1/1]
> > >>>>>>> MdeModulePkg/UefiBootManagerLib: Signal ReadyToBoot on
> > platform
> > >>>>>>> recovery
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Currently, the ReadyToBoot event is only signaled when a
> > >>>>>>> formal Boot Manager option is executed (in BmBoot.c ->
> > >>>>>>> EfiBootManagerBoot ()).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> However, with the introduction of Platform Recovery in UEFI
> > >>>>>>> 2.5, which may lead to the execution of a boot loader that has
> > >>>>>>> similar requirements to a regular one, yet is not launched as
> > >>>>>>> a Boot Manager option, it also becomes necessary to signal
> > >>>>>>> ReadyToBoot when a Platform Recovery boot loader runs.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Especially, this can be critical to ensuring that the
> > >>>>>>> graphical console is actually usable during platform recovery,
> > >>>>>>> as some platforms do rely on the ConsolePrefDxe driver, which
> > >>>>>>> only performs console initialization after ReadyToBoot is
> triggered.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> This patch fixes that behaviour by calling
> > >>>>>>> EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot () in
> > EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption
> > >>>>>>> (), which is the function that sets up the platform recovery
> > >>>>>>> boot process.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pete Batard <mailto:pete at akeo.ie>
> > >>>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>>
> MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c
> > | 9
> > >>>>>>> +++++++++
> > >>>>>>>       1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> diff --git
> > >>>>>>> a/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c
> > >>>>>>> b/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c
> > >>>>>>> index 89372b3b97b8..117f1f5b124c 100644
> > >>>>>>> ---
> > a/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c
> > >>>>>>> +++
> > b/MdeModulePkg/Library/UefiBootManagerLib/BmLoadOption.c
> > >>>>>>> @@ -1376,6 +1376,15 @@ EfiBootManagerProcessLoadOption (
> > >>>>>>>           return EFI_SUCCESS;
> > >>>>>>>         }
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> +  //
> > >>>>>>> +  // Signal the EVT_SIGNAL_READY_TO_BOOT event when we
> are
> > >>>>>>> +about
> > >>>>>>> to load and execute the boot option.
> > >>>>>>> +  //
> > >>>>>>> +  EfiSignalEventReadyToBoot ();
> > >>>>>>> +  //
> > >>>>>>> +  // Report Status Code to indicate ReadyToBoot was signalled
> > >>>>>>> +//  REPORT_STATUS_CODE (EFI_PROGRESS_CODE,
> > >>>>>>> (EFI_SOFTWARE_DXE_BS_DRIVER |
> > >>>>>>> + EFI_SW_DXE_BS_PC_READY_TO_BOOT_EVENT));
> > >>>>>>> +
> > >>>>>>>         //
> > >>>>>>>         // Load and start the load option.
> > >>>>>>>         //
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> 2.21.0.windows.1
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 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.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 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.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 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.
>
>
> 
>

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.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#74604): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/74604
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/80820897/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-






More information about the edk2-devel-archive mailing list