RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Michael Lawnick]

Hi,

in our environment we get error on efi_selftest if one of several SSD
partitions isn't properly initialized (due to some other error, but
that's a different topic). I tried to track down to where the partitions
get registered for test but got a bit lost so I request advice from you.

Shouldn't be the registering of partitions for self test been made
dependent on successful basic init? I wouldn't qualify a non-initialized
partition as reason to let self test fail. If at all a warning should be
sufficient.
As far as I understand efi self test is intended more as a functional
regression test, not a H/W system test, isn't it?
What about the idea to allow to exclude partitions by environment variable?

KR
Michael

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

On 9/14/21 4:56 PM, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in our environment we get error on efi_selftest if one of several SSD
> partitions isn't properly initialized (due to some other error, but
> that's a different topic). I tried to track down to where the partitions
> get registered for test but got a bit lost so I request advice from you.

When the UEFI sub-system is intialized we call efi_disk_register(). If
it fails, we don't enter the UEFI sub-system.

Are you able to identify where efi_disk_register() fails?

>
> Shouldn't be the registering of partitions for self test been made
> dependent on successful basic init? I wouldn't qualify a non-initialized
> partition as reason to let self test fail. If at all a warning should be
> sufficient.
> As far as I understand efi self test is intended more as a functional
> regression test, not a H/W system test, isn't it?
> What about the idea to allow to exclude partitions by environment variable?

We use efi_selftest in our continuous integration. Patches that make it
fail will not be accepted upstream. It is nothing that you need on a
deployed production system.

Best regards

Heinrich

>
> KR
> Michael

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Michael Lawnick]

Am 14.09.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
> On 9/14/21 4:56 PM, Michael Lawnick wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> in our environment we get error on efi_selftest if one of several SSD
>> partitions isn't properly initialized (due to some other error, but
>> that's a different topic). I tried to track down to where the partitions
>> get registered for test but got a bit lost so I request advice from you.
>
> When the UEFI sub-system is intialized we call efi_disk_register(). If
> it fails, we don't enter the UEFI sub-system.
>
> Are you able to identify where efi_disk_register() fails?

The system starts up properly.
This is what I see:
ASIM-CN10KAS> efiload $loadaddr
Loaded EFI App image at 0x40080000 with 0x216000 bytes
ASIM-CN10KAS> bootefi $loadaddr $fdtaddr
Scanning disk sdhci@824000000000.blk...
** Unrecognized filesystem type **
** Unrecognized filesystem type **
** Unrecognized filesystem type **
Found 8 disks
Init Monotonic Count to zero
...

But the efi selftest fails.

>
>>
>> Shouldn't be the registering of partitions for self test been made
>> dependent on successful basic init? I wouldn't qualify a non-initialized
>> partition as reason to let self test fail. If at all a warning should be
>> sufficient.
>> As far as I understand efi self test is intended more as a functional
>> regression test, not a H/W system test, isn't it?
>> What about the idea to allow to exclude partitions by environment variable?
>
> We use efi_selftest in our continuous integration. Patches that make it
> fail will not be accepted upstream. It is nothing that you need on a
> deployed production system.
>

Somehow I miss the connection between my question and your answer.
We want to integrate the efi_selftest into our CI, too. But if it fails
due to one uninitialized partition out of 8 then things become more
complicated than they should. Based on this I am asking why this problem
exists at all.

--
KR
Michael

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

Am 15. September 2021 11:56:07 MESZ schrieb Michael Lawnick <ml.lawnick@gmx.de>:
>Am 14.09.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
>> On 9/14/21 4:56 PM, Michael Lawnick wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> in our environment we get error on efi_selftest if one of several SSD
>>> partitions isn't properly initialized (due to some other error, but
>>> that's a different topic). I tried to track down to where the partitions
>>> get registered for test but got a bit lost so I request advice from you.
>>
>> When the UEFI sub-system is intialized we call efi_disk_register(). If
>> it fails, we don't enter the UEFI sub-system.
>>
>> Are you able to identify where efi_disk_register() fails?
>
>The system starts up properly.
>This is what I see:
>ASIM-CN10KAS> efiload $loadaddr
>Loaded EFI App image at 0x40080000 with 0x216000 bytes
>ASIM-CN10KAS> bootefi $loadaddr $fdtaddr
>Scanning disk sdhci@824000000000.blk...
>** Unrecognized filesystem type **
>** Unrecognized filesystem type **
>** Unrecognized filesystem type **

This is not an error. Just an info.

>Found 8 disks
>Init Monotonic Count to zero
>...
>
>But the efi selftest fails.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Shouldn't be the registering of partitions for self test been made
>>> dependent on successful basic init? I wouldn't qualify a non-initialized
>>> partition as reason to let self test fail. If at all a warning should be
>>> sufficient.
>>> As far as I understand efi self test is intended more as a functional
>>> regression test, not a H/W system test, isn't it?
>>> What about the idea to allow to exclude partitions by environment variable?
>>
>> We use efi_selftest in our continuous integration. Patches that make it
>> fail will not be accepted upstream. It is nothing that you need on a
>> deployed production system.
>>
>
>Somehow I miss the connection between my question and your answer.
>We want to integrate the efi_selftest into our CI, too. But if it fails
>due to one uninitialized partition out of 8 then things become more
>complicated than they should. Based on this I am asking why this problem
>exists at all.

Could you, please send the complete output starting with 'bootefi selftest'.

Best regards

Heinrich 

>
>--
>KR
>Michael
>

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Michael Lawnick]

Am 15.09.2021 um 12:42 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:

> Could you, please send the complete output starting with 'bootefi selftest'.

ASIM-CN10KAS> setenv efi_selftest block device
ASIM-CN10KAS> bootefi selftest

Testing EFI API implementation

Selected test: 'block device'

Setting up 'block device'
Setting up 'block device' succeeded

Executing 'block device'
** Unrecognized filesystem type **
lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c(362):
ERROR: Failed to open simple file system protocol
lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest.c(111):
ERROR: Executing 'block device' failed

Tearing down 'block device'
Tearing down 'block device' succeeded

Boot services terminated

Summary: 1 failures

--
KR
Michael

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Heinrich Schuchardt]

Am 15. September 2021 12:54:06 MESZ schrieb Michael Lawnick <ml.lawnick@gmx.de>:
>Am 15.09.2021 um 12:42 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
>
>> Could you, please send the complete output starting with 'bootefi selftest'.
>
>ASIM-CN10KAS> setenv efi_selftest block device
>ASIM-CN10KAS> bootefi selftest
>
>Testing EFI API implementation
>
>Selected test: 'block device'
>
>Setting up 'block device'
>Setting up 'block device' succeeded
>
>Executing 'block device'
>** Unrecognized filesystem type **

Is the FAT file system enabled in the configuration?

>lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c(362):
>ERROR: Failed to open simple file system protocol
>lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest.c(111):
>ERROR: Executing 'block device' failed
>
>Tearing down 'block device'
>Tearing down 'block device' succeeded
>
>Boot services terminated
>
>Summary: 1 failures
>
>--
>KR
>Michael
>

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Michael Lawnick]

Am 15.09.2021 um 13:22 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
>
>
> Am 15. September 2021 12:54:06 MESZ schrieb Michael Lawnick <ml.lawnick@gmx.de>:
>> Am 15.09.2021 um 12:42 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
>>
>>> Could you, please send the complete output starting with 'bootefi selftest'.
>>
>> ASIM-CN10KAS> setenv efi_selftest block device
>> ASIM-CN10KAS> bootefi selftest
>>
>> Testing EFI API implementation
>>
>> Selected test: 'block device'
>>
>> Setting up 'block device'
>> Setting up 'block device' succeeded
>>
>> Executing 'block device'
>> ** Unrecognized filesystem type **
>
> Is the FAT file system enabled in the configuration?

No

>
>> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c(362):
>> ERROR: Failed to open simple file system protocol
>> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest.c(111):
>> ERROR: Executing 'block device' failed
>>
>> Tearing down 'block device'
>> Tearing down 'block device' succeeded
>>
>> Boot services terminated
>>
>> Summary: 1 failures

Sorry Heinrich, I managed to send below part to only you, so I repeat
for the group:
What might be worth to be noted:
We are working on U-Boot provided by Marvell for upcoming SoC based on
ThunderX. It is rather up to main branch but not the latest version.
Latest change from main:
Author: Patrick Wildt <patrick@blueri.se>
Date:   Wed Oct 7 11:04:33 2020 +0200
efi_loader: fix use after free in receive path
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>

If you can give a list of relevant modules I can make comparison, but
just updating everything to latest or comparing full source tree won't
be possible.

--
KR
Michael

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Mark Kettenis]

> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:42:16 +0200
> From: Heinrich  Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
> 
> Am 15. September 2021 11:56:07 MESZ schrieb Michael Lawnick <ml.lawnick@gmx.de>:
> >Am 14.09.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
> >> On 9/14/21 4:56 PM, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> in our environment we get error on efi_selftest if one of several SSD
> >>> partitions isn't properly initialized (due to some other error, but
> >>> that's a different topic). I tried to track down to where the partitions
> >>> get registered for test but got a bit lost so I request advice from you.
> >>
> >> When the UEFI sub-system is intialized we call efi_disk_register(). If
> >> it fails, we don't enter the UEFI sub-system.
> >>
> >> Are you able to identify where efi_disk_register() fails?
> >
> >The system starts up properly.
> >This is what I see:
> >ASIM-CN10KAS> efiload $loadaddr
> >Loaded EFI App image at 0x40080000 with 0x216000 bytes
> >ASIM-CN10KAS> bootefi $loadaddr $fdtaddr
> >Scanning disk sdhci@824000000000.blk...
> >** Unrecognized filesystem type **
> >** Unrecognized filesystem type **
> >** Unrecognized filesystem type **
> 
> This is not an error. Just an info.

It is somewhat annoying though.  The way disks are partitioned on the
Apple M1 systems, there are several Apple native partition types that
need to be retained and that U-Boot doesn't support.  So you see a lot
of these warnings.

Or maybe we should have a whitelist of partition types not to warn
about?

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Michael Lawnick]

Am 15.09.2021 um 13:36 schrieb Michael Lawnick:
> Am 15.09.2021 um 13:22 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
>>
>>
>> Am 15. September 2021 12:54:06 MESZ schrieb Michael Lawnick <ml.lawnick@gmx.de>:
>>> Am 15.09.2021 um 12:42 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
>>>
>>>> Could you, please send the complete output starting with 'bootefi selftest'.
>>>
>>> ASIM-CN10KAS> setenv efi_selftest block device
>>> ASIM-CN10KAS> bootefi selftest
>>>
>>> Testing EFI API implementation
>>>
>>> Selected test: 'block device'
>>>
>>> Setting up 'block device'
>>> Setting up 'block device' succeeded
>>>
>>> Executing 'block device'
>>> ** Unrecognized filesystem type **
>>
>> Is the FAT file system enabled in the configuration?
>
> No
>
>>
>>> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c(362):
>>> ERROR: Failed to open simple file system protocol
>>> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest.c(111):
>>> ERROR: Executing 'block device' failed
>>>
>>> Tearing down 'block device'
>>> Tearing down 'block device' succeeded
>>>
>>> Boot services terminated
>>>
>>> Summary: 1 failures
>
> Sorry Heinrich, I managed to send below part to only you, so I repeat
> for the group:
> What might be worth to be noted:
> We are working on U-Boot provided by Marvell for upcoming SoC based on
> ThunderX. It is rather up to main branch but not the latest version.
> Latest change from main:
> Author: Patrick Wildt <patrick@blueri.se>
> Date:   Wed Oct 7 11:04:33 2020 +0200
> efi_loader: fix use after free in receive path
> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
>
> If you can give a list of relevant modules I can make comparison, but
> just updating everything to latest or comparing full source tree won't
> be possible.
>

We have 8 partitions of which no. 5 isn't initialized.
I have put a bunch of printf to the code and see that the execute() is
done exactly on the partition which is unknown, no other gets touched !?

--
KR
Michael

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[AKASHI Takahiro]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 02:00:31PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:42:16 +0200
> > From: Heinrich  Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
> > 
> > Am 15. September 2021 11:56:07 MESZ schrieb Michael Lawnick <ml.lawnick@gmx.de>:
> > >Am 14.09.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
> > >> On 9/14/21 4:56 PM, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> in our environment we get error on efi_selftest if one of several SSD
> > >>> partitions isn't properly initialized (due to some other error, but
> > >>> that's a different topic). I tried to track down to where the partitions
> > >>> get registered for test but got a bit lost so I request advice from you.
> > >>
> > >> When the UEFI sub-system is intialized we call efi_disk_register(). If
> > >> it fails, we don't enter the UEFI sub-system.
> > >>
> > >> Are you able to identify where efi_disk_register() fails?
> > >
> > >The system starts up properly.
> > >This is what I see:
> > >ASIM-CN10KAS> efiload $loadaddr
> > >Loaded EFI App image at 0x40080000 with 0x216000 bytes
> > >ASIM-CN10KAS> bootefi $loadaddr $fdtaddr
> > >Scanning disk sdhci@824000000000.blk...
> > >** Unrecognized filesystem type **
> > >** Unrecognized filesystem type **
> > >** Unrecognized filesystem type **
> > 
> > This is not an error. Just an info.
> 
> It is somewhat annoying though.  The way disks are partitioned on the
> Apple M1 systems, there are several Apple native partition types that
> need to be retained and that U-Boot doesn't support.  So you see a lot
> of these warnings.
> 
> Or maybe we should have a whitelist of partition types not to warn
> about?

This message is not UEFI specific, but generic filesystem code
generates it. So you could
1) At fs_probe_unsupported() in fs/fs.c,
   change log_err() to log_warning() [or log_info()]
2) Set CONFIG_DEFAULT_LOG_LEVEL to 3(error) [or 4(warning)]
to suppress the message.

Or you may simply want to modify _log() so as to add a preamble,
like "WARN:", in front of the message.

-Takahiro Akashi

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[AKASHI Takahiro]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 05:06:09PM +0200, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> Am 15.09.2021 um 13:36 schrieb Michael Lawnick:
> > Am 15.09.2021 um 13:22 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Am 15. September 2021 12:54:06 MESZ schrieb Michael Lawnick <ml.lawnick@gmx.de>:
> > > > Am 15.09.2021 um 12:42 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
> > > > 
> > > > > Could you, please send the complete output starting with 'bootefi selftest'.
> > > > 
> > > > ASIM-CN10KAS> setenv efi_selftest block device
> > > > ASIM-CN10KAS> bootefi selftest
> > > > 
> > > > Testing EFI API implementation
> > > > 
> > > > Selected test: 'block device'
> > > > 
> > > > Setting up 'block device'
> > > > Setting up 'block device' succeeded
> > > > 
> > > > Executing 'block device'
> > > > ** Unrecognized filesystem type **
> > > 
> > > Is the FAT file system enabled in the configuration?
> > 
> > No
> > 
> > > 
> > > > lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c(362):
> > > > ERROR: Failed to open simple file system protocol
> > > > lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest.c(111):
> > > > ERROR: Executing 'block device' failed
> > > > 
> > > > Tearing down 'block device'
> > > > Tearing down 'block device' succeeded
> > > > 
> > > > Boot services terminated
> > > > 
> > > > Summary: 1 failures
> > 
> > Sorry Heinrich, I managed to send below part to only you, so I repeat
> > for the group:
> > What might be worth to be noted:
> > We are working on U-Boot provided by Marvell for upcoming SoC based on
> > ThunderX. It is rather up to main branch but not the latest version.
> > Latest change from main:
> > Author: Patrick Wildt <patrick@blueri.se>
> > Date:   Wed Oct 7 11:04:33 2020 +0200
> > efi_loader: fix use after free in receive path
> > Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
> > 
> > If you can give a list of relevant modules I can make comparison, but
> > just updating everything to latest or comparing full source tree won't
> > be possible.
> > 
> 
> We have 8 partitions of which no. 5 isn't initialized.
> I have put a bunch of printf to the code and see that the execute() is
> done exactly on the partition which is unknown, no other gets touched !?

Just in case,
"block device" selftest doesn't touch you disk at all.
Instead, it sets up some memory region as a pseudo block device
(i.e. block_io_protocol) with fat filesystem, and utilizes it
for the test execution.

Please, as Heinrich suggested, add CONFIG_FS_FAT, in your U-Boot configuration.

-Takahiro Akashi


> --
> KR
> Michael

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Michael Lawnick]

Am 16.09.2021 um 09:12 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 05:06:09PM +0200, Michael Lawnick wrote:
>> Am 15.09.2021 um 13:36 schrieb Michael Lawnick:
>>> Am 15.09.2021 um 13:22 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 15. September 2021 12:54:06 MESZ schrieb Michael Lawnick <ml.lawnick@gmx.de>:
>>>>> Am 15.09.2021 um 12:42 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you, please send the complete output starting with 'bootefi selftest'.
>>>>>
>>>>> ASIM-CN10KAS> setenv efi_selftest block device
>>>>> ASIM-CN10KAS> bootefi selftest
>>>>>
>>>>> Testing EFI API implementation
>>>>>
>>>>> Selected test: 'block device'
>>>>>
>>>>> Setting up 'block device'
>>>>> Setting up 'block device' succeeded
>>>>>
>>>>> Executing 'block device'
>>>>> ** Unrecognized filesystem type **
>>>>
>>>> Is the FAT file system enabled in the configuration?
>>>
>>> No
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c(362):
>>>>> ERROR: Failed to open simple file system protocol
>>>>> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest.c(111):
>>>>> ERROR: Executing 'block device' failed
>>>>>
>>>>> Tearing down 'block device'
>>>>> Tearing down 'block device' succeeded
>>>>>
>>>>> Boot services terminated
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary: 1 failures
>>>
>>> Sorry Heinrich, I managed to send below part to only you, so I repeat
>>> for the group:
>>> What might be worth to be noted:
>>> We are working on U-Boot provided by Marvell for upcoming SoC based on
>>> ThunderX. It is rather up to main branch but not the latest version.
>>> Latest change from main:
>>> Author: Patrick Wildt <patrick@blueri.se>
>>> Date:   Wed Oct 7 11:04:33 2020 +0200
>>> efi_loader: fix use after free in receive path
>>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>
>>>
>>> If you can give a list of relevant modules I can make comparison, but
>>> just updating everything to latest or comparing full source tree won't
>>> be possible.
>>>
>>
>> We have 8 partitions of which no. 5 isn't initialized.
>> I have put a bunch of printf to the code and see that the execute() is
>> done exactly on the partition which is unknown, no other gets touched !?
>
> Just in case,
> "block device" selftest doesn't touch you disk at all.
> Instead, it sets up some memory region as a pseudo block device
> (i.e. block_io_protocol) with fat filesystem, and utilizes it
> for the test execution.
>
> Please, as Heinrich suggested, add CONFIG_FS_FAT, in your U-Boot configuration.
>
Hmm, I didn't understand that as a suggestion, but as a question for his
understanding. Of course I'll give it a try.

KR
Michael

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Michael Lawnick]

Am 16.09.2021 um 09:15 schrieb Michael Lawnick:
> Am 16.09.2021 um 09:12 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
>> Please, as Heinrich suggested, add CONFIG_FS_FAT, in your U-Boot configuration.
>>
> Hmm, I didn't understand that as a suggestion, but as a question for his
> understanding. Of course I'll give it a try.
>
Sometimes live is such easy. This fixed my issue, THX.

For the after-math / my understanding:
- Do I understand correctly that the problem was that 'efi_selftest
block device' requires FAT support? So shouldn't there be a dependency
in CONFIG?
- What is the reason/use to iterate through the recognized partitions
even twice (in .setup and .execute) if they aren't needed/used?

--
KR
Michael

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[AKASHI Takahiro]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 09:48:07AM +0200, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> Am 16.09.2021 um 09:15 schrieb Michael Lawnick:
> > Am 16.09.2021 um 09:12 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> > > Please, as Heinrich suggested, add CONFIG_FS_FAT, in your U-Boot configuration.
> > > 
> > Hmm, I didn't understand that as a suggestion, but as a question for his
> > understanding. Of course I'll give it a try.
> > 
> Sometimes live is such easy. This fixed my issue, THX.
> 
> For the after-math / my understanding:
> - Do I understand correctly that the problem was that 'efi_selftest
> block device' requires FAT support? So shouldn't there be a dependency
> in CONFIG?

Strictly speaking, CONFIG_EFI_LOADER requires FAT per UEFI specification,
and actually it has 'imply FAT'. I don't know why Heinrich uses 'imply'
instead of 'select'.

> - What is the reason/use to iterate through the recognized partitions
> even twice (in .setup and .execute) if they aren't needed/used?

What line of code do you exactly mean by 'in .setup' (and in .execute)?

-Takahiro Akashi

> 
> --
> KR
> Michael

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Michael Lawnick]

Am 16.09.2021 um 10:02 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 09:48:07AM +0200, Michael Lawnick wrote:
>> Am 16.09.2021 um 09:15 schrieb Michael Lawnick:
>>> Am 16.09.2021 um 09:12 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
>>>> Please, as Heinrich suggested, add CONFIG_FS_FAT, in your U-Boot configuration.
>>>>
>>> Hmm, I didn't understand that as a suggestion, but as a question for his
>>> understanding. Of course I'll give it a try.
>>>
>> Sometimes live is such easy. This fixed my issue, THX.
>>
>> For the after-math / my understanding:
>> - Do I understand correctly that the problem was that 'efi_selftest
>> block device' requires FAT support? So shouldn't there be a dependency
>> in CONFIG?
>
> Strictly speaking, CONFIG_EFI_LOADER requires FAT per UEFI specification,
> and actually it has 'imply FAT'. I don't know why Heinrich uses 'imply'
> instead of 'select'.
>
>> - What is the reason/use to iterate through the recognized partitions
>> even twice (in .setup and .execute) if they aren't needed/used?
>
> What line of code do you exactly mean by 'in .setup' (and in .execute)?

My understanding:
efi_selftests register their methods separated by setup/execute/teardown.
The central test control is taking tests from list and executes the
three methods, unaware of which exact test is executed:
lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest.c
lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[AKASHI Takahiro]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:14:01AM +0200, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> Am 16.09.2021 um 10:02 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 09:48:07AM +0200, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> > > Am 16.09.2021 um 09:15 schrieb Michael Lawnick:
> > > > Am 16.09.2021 um 09:12 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> > > > > Please, as Heinrich suggested, add CONFIG_FS_FAT, in your U-Boot configuration.
> > > > > 
> > > > Hmm, I didn't understand that as a suggestion, but as a question for his
> > > > understanding. Of course I'll give it a try.
> > > > 
> > > Sometimes live is such easy. This fixed my issue, THX.
> > > 
> > > For the after-math / my understanding:
> > > - Do I understand correctly that the problem was that 'efi_selftest
> > > block device' requires FAT support? So shouldn't there be a dependency
> > > in CONFIG?
> > 
> > Strictly speaking, CONFIG_EFI_LOADER requires FAT per UEFI specification,
> > and actually it has 'imply FAT'. I don't know why Heinrich uses 'imply'
> > instead of 'select'.
> > 
> > > - What is the reason/use to iterate through the recognized partitions
> > > even twice (in .setup and .execute) if they aren't needed/used?
> > 
> > What line of code do you exactly mean by 'in .setup' (and in .execute)?
> 
> My understanding:
> efi_selftests register their methods separated by setup/execute/teardown.
> The central test control is taking tests from list and executes the
> three methods, unaware of which exact test is executed:
> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest.c

That is exactly what efi_selftest.c does.

> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c

And this is a test instance for block device test.
So what's your question?

-Takahiro Akashi

Re: RFC: exclude partitions from efi_selftest

[Michael Lawnick]

Am 16.09.2021 um 11:37 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:14:01AM +0200, Michael Lawnick wrote:
>> Am 16.09.2021 um 10:02 schrieb AKASHI Takahiro:
>>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 09:48:07AM +0200, Michael Lawnick wrote:
>>>> Am 16.09.2021 um 09:15 schrieb Michael Lawnick:
>>>> - What is the reason/use to iterate through the recognized partitions
>>>> even twice (in .setup and .execute) if they aren't needed/used?
>>>
>>> What line of code do you exactly mean by 'in .setup' (and in .execute)?
>>
>> My understanding:
>> efi_selftests register their methods separated by setup/execute/teardown.
>> The central test control is taking tests from list and executes the
>> three methods, unaware of which exact test is executed:
>> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest.c
>
> That is exactly what efi_selftest.c does.
>
>> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c
>
> And this is a test instance for block device test.
> So what's your question?
>

Hmm, I think the question is really clear, I don't know how to ask
differently. But as the original issue is cleared and this is only for
background understanding, let's drop it.

THX again to you and Heinrich for fast help.

--
KR
Michael