On 07.04.21 23:50, Michael Brown wrote:
On 07/04/2021 22:31, Marvin Häuser wrote:
Sorry, but I do not see why this would be the case. In fact the
solution is (temporary) co-existence, as already is the case with
InstallProtocolInterface() and InstallMultipleProtocolInterfaces()
InstallMultipleProtocolInterfaces() is not a breaking change: the
existence of InstallMultipleProtocolInterfaces() does not require any
change to the way that InstallProtocolInterface() is implemented or
consumed.
Code written before the invention of
InstallMultipleProtocolInterfaces() will still work now, with no
modifications required.
The same is true for the *2_PROTOCOL instances, I do not see how you
distinct between them. Could you elaborate, please?
the new APIs would be a superset of the old ones, latter can be
implemented with former, as also previously done (*2_PROTOCOL
instances and shims in e.g. EdkCompatibilityPkg). In some cases, the
original protocol interfaces were actually deprecated successfully
from the EDK II code base. I would probably offer PCDs to disable the
expose of the old APIs, so platforms with little need for
backwards-compatibility and more focus on security can tighten the
constraints as they see fit. Considering the shimmed interfaces for
the old protocols/PPIs/... can be implemented on top of the new
public API, and the public API must not change, this code would be
practically maintenance-free too in my opinion.
You have to remember that UEFI is not a monolithic codebase with a
single maintaining organisation. Implementing a *2_PROTOCOL and
deprecating the original just causes pain for all the code in the
world that is maintained outside of the EDK2 repository, since that
code now has to support *both* the old and new protocols.
I am aware, but actually it's not far from it nowadays. In contrast to
the days of Aptio IV, I believe all big vendors maintain forks of EDK
II. I know the fork nature taints the issue, but also see last quote
comment.
As for your example, I do not believe what is described is "broken".
To avoid distraction from that specific example: have a different
example. The EFI_USB_IO_PROTOCOL is fundamentally broken from the
perspective of implementing a network device driver, since there is
simply no way to enqueue a receive buffer that will wait for the next
available packet. But this won't get fixed, because it can't get
fixed without breaking API compatibility.
I see that there is no EFI_USB_IO2_PROTOCOL instance to argue by. Yet
there are EFI_BLOCK_IO2_PROTOCOL and EFI_LOAD_FILE2_PROTOCOL. Former, in
my opinion, close in nature to your your example, and latter close to
the nature on what I plan to propose. Sorry, but I do not see how what I
suggest has not been done multiple times in the past already.
Please also look at it from an angle of trust. How can I trust the
"secure" advertisements of UEFI / EDK II when the specification
*dictates* the usage of intrinsically insecure APIs?
The consequence for security-critical situations would be to necessarily
abandon UEFI and come up with a new design. In who's interest is this?
(Incidentally, I've observed UEFI software in the wild (from Insyde)
that works around these UEFI USB specification flaws by having all of
the USB drivers bind to private protocols in addition to
EFI_USB_IO_PROTOCOL, resulting in device drivers that point-blank fail
to work with a standards-conformant UEFI USB host controller driver.)
Don't get me wrong: I *am* in favour of improving the security of
EDK2, and a formally verified loader is potentially useful for that.
But I could only consider it a good idea if it can be done without
making breaking API changes for which I know I will personally have to
maintain workarounds for the next ten years.
Sorry, but you seem to have missed my points regarding these concerns,
at least you did not address them I believe. I don't know why you need
to (actively) maintain workarounds for APIs external code has no reason
to use, especially when the legacy implementation would quite literally
be a wrapper function. This could both be a separate driver (Thunk, as
in EdkCompatibilityPkg) or integrated (per PCD). In fact, this does need
thorough discussion, but my favourite route would be to actually pull
some things from the PI specification and make them EDK II
implementation details.
Best regards,
Marvin
Thanks,
Michael
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#73827): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/73827
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/81853302/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
