[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <F54AEECA5E2B9541821D670476DAE19C2B8AF4F2@PGSMSX102.gar.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:18:15 +0000
From: "Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] efi: Capsule update with user helper
interface
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Lutomirski [mailto:luto@...capital.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:38 AM
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Kweh, Hock Leong
> <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > Just to call out that using firmware class auto locate binary feature is limited
> > to locations:
> > - "/lib/firmware/updates/" UTS_RELEASE,
> > - "/lib/firmware/updates",
> > - "/lib/firmware/" UTS_RELEASE,
> > - "/lib/firmware"
> > and one custom path which inputted during firmware_class module load
> > time or kernel boot up time.
> >
> > It is just not like the user helper interface which allow load the binary at
> > any path/location.
> >
> > This really is not a big deal. User should cope with it.
>
> No, it's a big deal, and the user should not cope.
>
> The user *should not* be required to have write access to anything in
> /lib to install a UEFI capsule that they download from their
> motherboard vendor's website. /lib belongs to the distro, and UEFI
> capsules do not belong to the distro. In this regard, UEFI capsules
> are completely unlike your wireless card firmware, your cpu microcode,
> etc.
>
> Imagine systems using NFS root, Atomic-style systems (e.g. ostree),
> systems that boot off squashfs, etc. They should still be able to
> load capsules. The basic user interface that should work is:
>
> # uefi-load-capsule /path/to/capsule
>
> or:
>
> # uefi-load-capsule - </path/to/capsule
>
> I don't really care how uefi-load-capsule is implemented, as long as
> it's straightforward, because people will screw it up if it isn't
> straightforward.
>
> Why is it so hard to have a file in sysfs that you write the capsule
> to using *cat* (not echo) and that will return an error code if cat
> fails? Is it because you don't know where the end of the capsule is?
> if so, ioctl is designed for exactly this purpose.
>
> TBH, I find this thread kind of ridiculous. The problem that you're
> trying to solve is extremely simple, the functionality that userspace
> needs is trivial, and all of these complex proposals for how it should
> work are an artifact of the fact that the kernel-internal interfaces
> you're using for it are not well suited to the problem at hand.
>
> --Andy
Sorry, I may not catch your point correctly. Are you trying to tell that
a "normal" user can perform efi capsule update. But a "normal" user
does not have the right to install or copy the capsule binary into
"/lib/firmware/". So, there is a need to make this capsule module to
allow uploading the capsule binary at any path or location other than
"/lib/firmware/".
Is this what you mean?
Regards,
Wilson
Powered by blists - more mailing lists