-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 291
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Updated support for SHIM on RISC-V #641
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Add what is needed to build on riscv64. Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com> This is an update to rhboot#420 which brings it in alignment with the current upstream. Signed-off-by: Brian 'redbeard' Harrington <redbeard@dead-city.org>
144f786
to
debe983
Compare
@vathpela can we get a review? |
debe983
to
5031a99
Compare
FYI, reverted the previous commit after a discussion with @xypron. Heinrich helpfully pointed out that the structure of pre-processor definitions in the form of |
FYI gnu-efi ( https://github.com/rhboot/gnu-efi/tree/master ) has been rebased to 3.0.18 (released 3 days ago!). The builds are already available for F40 and F41 in Fedora too: |
Make.defaults
Outdated
ARCH_GNUEFI ?= riscv64 | ||
ARCH_SUFFIX ?= riscv64 | ||
ARCH_SUFFIX_UPPER ?= RISCV64 | ||
FORMAT := -O binary |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We had some discussions with Peter Jones last year. There was a strong preference not to add more "-O binary" architectures. Two patches landed in binutils 2.42:
[PATCH] Add basic support for RISC-V 64-bit EFI objects
[PATCH] Handle "efi-app-riscv64" and similar targets in objcopy. // From Peter Jones
That means we have efi-app-riscv64
support. That probably means it should look more like aarch64. I haven't looked deeper or tested it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@davidlt Shim has an .sbat section with the contents of a CSV file for defining the security patch level. How would you create that section with binutils' efi-app-riscv64 target?
The content of the .sbat section is something like:
sbat,1,SBAT Version,sbat,1,https://github.com/rhboot/shim/blob/main/SBAT.md
shim,4,UEFI shim,shim,1,https://github.com/rhboot/shim
shim.ubuntu,1,Ubuntu,shim,15.8-0ubuntu1,https://www.ubuntu.com/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It really seems that the lines
+ FORMAT := -O binary
+ SUBSYSTEM := 0xa
+ ARCH_LDFLAGS += --defsym=EFI_SUBSYSTEM=$(SUBSYSTEM)
+ TIMESTAMP_LOCATION := 72
are not needed. SUBSYSTEM defaults to 0x0a in branch main of https://github.com/rhboot/gnu-efi.git:
gnu-efi/gnuefi/crt0-efi-riscv64.S:20:
#define EFI_SUBSYSTEM 10
TIMESTAMP_LOCATION is unused.
FORMAT is a flag passed to riscv64-linux-gnu-objcopy which seems unneded.
@brianredbeard Could you please drop the lines from your merge request.
The last commit is missing |
@@ -128,6 +128,21 @@ | |||
#endif | |||
#endif | |||
|
|||
#if defined(__riscv) && __riscv_xlen == 64 | |||
#ifndef DEFAULT_LOADER | |||
#define DEFAULT_LOADER L"\\grubriscv64.efi" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't the file name be shorter (as in 8.3 format) given a FAT filesystem?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- FAT supports long file names since Windows 95.
- The default name for EFI binaries on RISC-V is /EFI/BOOT/BOOTRISCV64.EFI. That is not 8.3 either.
- Distros like Fedora and Ubuntu are already using grubriscv64.efi as file name (cf. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/RISC-V/GRUB2)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, cool. I was just thinking I've seen some vendors expect/model on it being strict FAT12 in the x86 space, and seeing the longer file name started to bug me. Also interesting Ubuntu beat Debian since I checked Debian packaging yesterday when the question came up in another project of "what would the filename be?!" so we could correctly account for it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
UEFI requires support for FAT long filenames (LFN) in all FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32 so it's fine
Hey, I'm wondering what's missing to get this one merged at this point? From a cursory look, it seems that all points raised during review have been addressed. I'm really keen on seeing this make its way to Fedora. Along with the lack of an up-to-date GRUB2 (which is something that's supposedly being addressed as we speak), not having shim is, at least as far as I'm aware, the last remaining blocker to producing usable (albeit still unofficial) Fedora images for RISC-V. |
It is not very clean, but I was able to build and boot shim on a VisionFive 2 and EDK2 on a qemu/libvirt VM. I forked shim and gnu-efi with some rough work I had to pull a few things together to get builds working on riscv64.
You can basically clone https://github.com/jmontleon/shim/tree/riscv and With |
I don't think any distro has intentions to sign anything for RISC-V yet and I don't know if Microsoft would even accept it, or what the value would be in handing Microsoft the control over the RISC-V CA too. And unsigned you can just use grub directly and be happy, so I think there's no value merging changes like this and adding the maintenance overhead or have it potentially break each release because nobody tests it. |
Am 24. Juni 2024 09:46:14 MESZ schrieb Julian Andres Klode ***@***.***>:
> Hey, I'm wondering what's missing to get this one merged at this point? From a cursory look, it seems that all points raised during review have been addressed.
>
> I'm really keen on seeing this make its way to Fedora. Along with the lack of an up-to-date GRUB2 (which is something that's supposedly [being ***@***.***/thread/PHGU7UQS6O5SLLZIWTVD3E73OTM4GCS7/) as we speak), not having shim is, at least as far as I'm aware, the last remaining blocker to producing usable (albeit still unofficial) Fedora images for RISC-V.
I don't think any distro has intentions to sign anything for RISC-V yet and I don't know if Microsoft would even accept it, or what the value would be in handing Microsoft the control over the RISC-V CA too.
Testing should be done in the CI. There is no need for Microsoft signing for testing.
There has not been any decision on a global signing authority yet.
We should avoid development after the hardware is out. Instead we should provide the RISC-V community the tools needed to test secure boot now. This does not imply that distros have to package it now.
Best regards
Heinrich
…
And unsigned you can just use grub directly and be happy, so I think there's no value merging changes like this and adding the maintenance overhead or have it potentially break each release because nobody tests it.
|
AFAIK shim doesn't just handle the Secure Boot part though, it also takes care of locating and running the GRUB binary when installed as the fallback entry ( Anyway, that's the part I'm interested in, as it would allow us to ship disk images that can be booted right away, without the need on the user's part to create UEFI boot entries themselves, For this to work there's no need for the shim binary to be signed, much less to determine who the signing entity would be. |
ncroxon/gnu-efi#34 was merged. Using that work and this PR I had to make a few changes to get things working properly. I also ended up having to reimplement the closed PR #410. I did see the note re: patching gnu-efi instead of shim, which would basically be undoing the CHAR8 commit (ncroxon/gnu-efi@ce1ec9d) if that approach is desired. |
I doubt it. SHIM and SHIM's gnu-efi is outdated and in a very inconsistent state. CHAR8 should be 'unsigned char' since that's how UEFI spec says it is. |
Add what is needed to build on riscv64.
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com
This is an update which supersedes #420 which brings it in alignment with the current upstream and fixes a minor style nit around the definition of
__riscv
.