[PATCH v6 00/14] Add the VariablePolicy feature
|
Bret Barkelew
REF:https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2522
The 14 patches in this series add the VariablePolicy feature to the core, deprecate Edk2VarLock (while adding a compatibility layer to reduce code churn), and integrate the VariablePolicy libraries and protocols into Variable Services. Since the integration requires multiple changes, including adding libraries, a protocol, an SMI communication handler, and VariableServices integration, the patches are broken up by individual library additions and then a final integration. Security-sensitive changes like bypassing Authenticated Variable enforcement are also broken out into individual patches so that attention can be called directly to them. Platform porting instructions are described in this wiki entry: https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/VariablePolicy-Protocol---Enhanced-Method-for-Managing-Variables#platform-porting Discussion of the feature can be found in multiple places throughout the last year on the RFC channel, staging branches, and in devel. Most recently, this subject was discussed in this thread: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/53712 (the code branches shared in that discussion are now out of date, but the whitepapers and discussion are relevant). Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@...> Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@...> Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@...> Cc: Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu@...> Cc: Liming Gao <liming.gao@...> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@...> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...> Cc: Andrew Fish <afish@...> Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@...> Cc: Bret Barkelew <brbarkel@...> Signed-off-by: Bret Barkelew <brbarkel@...> v6 changes: * Fix an issue with uninitialized Status in InitVariablePolicyLib() and DeinitVariablePolicyLib() * Fix GCC building in shell-based functional test * Rebase on latest origin/master v5 changes: * Fix the CONST mismatch in VariablePolicy.h and VariablePolicySmmDxe.c * Fix EFIAPI mismatches in the functional unittest * Rebase on latest origin/master v4 changes: * Remove Optional PcdAllowVariablePolicyEnforcementDisable PCD from platforms * Rebase on master * Migrate to new MmCommunicate2 protocol * Fix an oversight in the default return value for InitMmCommonCommBuffer * Fix in VariablePolicyLib to allow ExtraInitRuntimeDxe to consume variables V3 changes: * Address all non-unittest issues with ECC * Make additional style changes * Include section name in hunk headers in "ini-style" files * Remove requirement for the EdkiiPiSmmCommunicationsRegionTable driver (now allocates its own buffer) * Change names from VARIABLE_POLICY_PROTOCOL and gVariablePolicyProtocolGuid to EDKII_VARIABLE_POLICY_PROTOCOL and gEdkiiVariablePolicyProtocolGuid * Fix GCC warning about initializing externs * Add UNI strings for new PCD * Add patches for ArmVirtPkg, OvmfXen, and UefiPayloadPkg * Reorder patches according to Liming's feedback about adding to platforms before changing variable driver V2 changes: * Fixed implementation for RuntimeDxe * Add PCD to block DisableVariablePolicy * Fix the DumpVariablePolicy pagination in SMM Bret Barkelew (14): MdeModulePkg: Define the VariablePolicy protocol interface MdeModulePkg: Define the VariablePolicyLib MdeModulePkg: Define the VariablePolicyHelperLib MdeModulePkg: Define the VarCheckPolicyLib and SMM interface OvmfPkg: Add VariablePolicy engine to OvmfPkg platform EmulatorPkg: Add VariablePolicy engine to EmulatorPkg platform ArmVirtPkg: Add VariablePolicy engine to ArmVirtPkg platform UefiPayloadPkg: Add VariablePolicy engine to UefiPayloadPkg platform MdeModulePkg: Connect VariablePolicy business logic to VariableServices MdeModulePkg: Allow VariablePolicy state to delete protected variables SecurityPkg: Allow VariablePolicy state to delete authenticated variables MdeModulePkg: Change TCG MOR variables to use VariablePolicy MdeModulePkg: Drop VarLock from RuntimeDxe variable driver MdeModulePkg: Add a shell-based functional test for VariablePolicy MdeModulePkg/Library/VarCheckPolicyLib/VarCheckPolicyLib.c | 320 +++ MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyHelperLib/VariablePolicyHelperLib.c | 396 ++++ MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyExtraInitNull.c | 46 + MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyExtraInitRuntimeDxe.c | 85 + MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyLib.c | 816 +++++++ MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyUnitTest/VariablePolicyUnitTest.c | 2440 ++++++++++++++++++++ MdeModulePkg/Test/ShellTest/VariablePolicyFuncTestApp/VariablePolicyFuncTestApp.c | 1978 ++++++++++++++++ MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/TcgMorLockDxe.c | 52 +- MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/TcgMorLockSmm.c | 60 +- MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VarCheck.c | 49 +- MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableDxe.c | 53 + MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableLockRequstToLock.c | 71 + MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariablePolicySmmDxe.c | 642 +++++ MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableSmmRuntimeDxe.c | 14 + SecurityPkg/Library/AuthVariableLib/AuthService.c | 22 +- ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirt.dsc.inc | 4 + EmulatorPkg/EmulatorPkg.dsc | 3 + MdeModulePkg/Include/Guid/VarCheckPolicyMmi.h | 54 + MdeModulePkg/Include/Library/VariablePolicyHelperLib.h | 164 ++ MdeModulePkg/Include/Library/VariablePolicyLib.h | 207 ++ MdeModulePkg/Include/Protocol/VariablePolicy.h | 157 ++ MdeModulePkg/Library/VarCheckPolicyLib/VarCheckPolicyLib.inf | 42 + MdeModulePkg/Library/VarCheckPolicyLib/VarCheckPolicyLib.uni | 12 + MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyHelperLib/VariablePolicyHelperLib.inf | 35 + MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyHelperLib/VariablePolicyHelperLib.uni | 12 + MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyLib.inf | 44 + MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyLib.uni | 12 + MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyLibRuntimeDxe.inf | 51 + MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyUnitTest/VariablePolicyUnitTest.inf | 40 + MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.ci.yaml | 4 +- MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec | 26 +- MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dsc | 15 + MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.uni | 7 + MdeModulePkg/Test/MdeModulePkgHostTest.dsc | 11 + MdeModulePkg/Test/ShellTest/VariablePolicyFuncTestApp/Readme.md | 55 + MdeModulePkg/Test/ShellTest/VariablePolicyFuncTestApp/VariablePolicyFuncTestApp.inf | 42 + MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableRuntimeDxe.inf | 5 + MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableSmm.inf | 4 + MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableSmmRuntimeDxe.inf | 10 + MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableStandaloneMm.inf | 4 + OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32.dsc | 5 + OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc | 5 + OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc | 5 + OvmfPkg/OvmfXen.dsc | 4 + SecurityPkg/Library/AuthVariableLib/AuthVariableLib.inf | 2 + UefiPayloadPkg/UefiPayloadPkgIa32.dsc | 4 + UefiPayloadPkg/UefiPayloadPkgIa32X64.dsc | 4 + 47 files changed, 8015 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-) create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VarCheckPolicyLib/VarCheckPolicyLib.c create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyHelperLib/VariablePolicyHelperLib.c create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyExtraInitNull.c create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyExtraInitRuntimeDxe.c create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyLib.c create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyUnitTest/VariablePolicyUnitTest.c create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Test/ShellTest/VariablePolicyFuncTestApp/VariablePolicyFuncTestApp.c create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableLockRequstToLock.c create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariablePolicySmmDxe.c create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Include/Guid/VarCheckPolicyMmi.h create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Include/Library/VariablePolicyHelperLib.h create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Include/Library/VariablePolicyLib.h create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Include/Protocol/VariablePolicy.h create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VarCheckPolicyLib/VarCheckPolicyLib.inf create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VarCheckPolicyLib/VarCheckPolicyLib.uni create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyHelperLib/VariablePolicyHelperLib.inf create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyHelperLib/VariablePolicyHelperLib.uni create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyLib.inf create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyLib.uni create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyLibRuntimeDxe.inf create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Library/VariablePolicyLib/VariablePolicyUnitTest/VariablePolicyUnitTest.inf create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Test/ShellTest/VariablePolicyFuncTestApp/Readme.md create mode 100644 MdeModulePkg/Test/ShellTest/VariablePolicyFuncTestApp/VariablePolicyFuncTestApp.inf -- 2.26.2.windows.1.8.g01c50adf56.20200515075929 |
|
|
|
Dandan Bi
Hi Bret,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks for the contribution. I have taken an overview of this patch series and have some small comments in the related patches, please check in sub-patch. I will review the patch series more in details and bring more comments back if have. Do you have a branch for these patches in GitHub? Which should be easy for review. Thanks, Dandan -----Original Message----- |
|
|
|
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
Certainly do:
I’ve already made a change from some of your feedback in that branch and will restructure the patches for v7 once all feedback is in. Thanks!
- Bret
From: Dandan Bi via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 7:13 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; bret@... Cc: Yao, Jiewen; Zhang, Chao B; Wang, Jian J; Wu, Hao A; liming.gao; Justen, Jordan L; Laszlo Ersek; Ard Biesheuvel; Andrew Fish; Ni, Ray Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v6 00/14] Add the VariablePolicy feature
Hi Bret,
|
|
|
|
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
Actually, if you want to leave feedback in the CI test PR that I made for this version, I’m happy to discuss there as well. https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/718/files
- Bret
From: Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 11:46 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; dandan.bi@...; bret@... Cc: Yao, Jiewen; Zhang, Chao B; Wang, Jian J; Wu, Hao A; liming.gao; Justen, Jordan L; Laszlo Ersek; Ard Biesheuvel; Andrew Fish; Ni, Ray Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v6 00/14] Add the VariablePolicy feature
Certainly do:
I’ve already made a change from some of your feedback in that branch and will restructure the patches for v7 once all feedback is in. Thanks!
- Bret
From: Dandan Bi via groups.io
Hi Bret,
|
|
|
|
Laszlo Ersek
On 07/02/20 08:47, Bret Barkelew wrote:
Actually, if you want to leave feedback in the CI test PR that I made for this version, I’m happy to discuss there as well.Please let's not do that just yet. Once we have a flag day, we should have review discussions exclusively in github. Before that day, the mailing list should carry the review comments however. Thanks Laszlo |
|
|
|
Dandan Bi
Hi Bret,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Sorry for the delayed response. Some more comments here: 1. Currently I see the LockVaribePolicy is called at ReadyToBoot by variable driver, could we update it to be called at EndOfDxe? We should prevent malicious code registering policy after EndOfDxe for security concern. And could we also add the test case to check the variable policy is locked at EndofDxe? 2. For patch 4, the SMM communication, some general guidelines for SMI handler: a) Check whether the communication buffer is outside SMM and valid. For this feature, please double check whether the communication buffer is checked, if all the range in communication buffer has already been checked within existing edk2 core infrastructure, please also add the comments in the code to mention that it has been checked. b) Should copy the communication buffer to SMRAM before checking the data fields to avoid TOC/TOU attac For this feature, for example, when dump variable policy, if malicious code updates the DumpParams->TotalSize in communication buffer to smaller one to allocate the PaginationCache buffer, and then update it the correct one and dump the variable policy data into the PaginationCache buffer, it will cause buffer overflow in this case. So please double check the code and copy the communication buffer into SMRAM to avoid such kind issue. 3. Did you do any security test for this feature? 4. Currently, LockVariablePolicy can prevent RegisterVariablePolicy and DisableVariablePolicy. So in SMI hander, could we check the variable policy is locked or not firstly and then decide whether need to check and execution for VAR_CHECK_POLICY_COMMAND_REGISTER and VAR_CHECK_POLICY_COMMAND_DISABLE? 5. Since there is the logic when variable policy is disabled, it will permit deletion of auth/protected variables. Could we add some comments in code to mention that variable policy should always be enabled for security concern to avoid giving bad example? Thanks, Dandan -----Original Message----- |
|
|
|
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
Responses below…
- Bret
From: Dandan Bi via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 6:52 AM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Bi, Dandan; bret@... Cc: Yao, Jiewen; Zhang, Chao B; Wang, Jian J; Wu, Hao A; liming.gao; Justen, Jordan L; Laszlo Ersek; Ard Biesheuvel; Andrew Fish; Ni, Ray Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v6 00/14] Add the VariablePolicy feature
Hi Bret, We could. Right now it’s at ReadyToBoot because it’s just there as a safety net and the platform could lock it earlier. Would it work to have a PCD for which EventGroup GUID the platform
should lock on? I checked this, but I will recheck (since there’ve been a few revisions in the patches) and update the comments. Will also check for this. Such as? There are both unit tests and integration tests to ensure correct functionality and that the disable and lock interfaces work as expected. I haven’t fuzzed it or anything that
involved. I’ll take a look, but my gut says this may be an unnecessary complication. I’m happy to think about how to document this, but I’m not immediately inclined to outright say it shouldn’t be disabled. I’d be happy to say that it shouldn’t be disabled in “normal,
production configuration”, but it’s entirely reasonable to be disabled in a Manufacturing or R&R environment and we would actually prefer this be used because it would at least be consistent across platforms, rather than being something done ad hoc by each
platform that needs it. Would that be sufficient?
|
|
|
|
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
Dandan,
I’ve addressed points 1-3 in this commit: https://github.com/corthon/edk2/tree/var_policy_dev_submission_v7
I’ve also added a note to the new ReadMe about point #6:
Will put up a v7 of patches this week.
- Bret
From: Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 10:24 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; dandan.bi@...; bret@... Cc: Yao, Jiewen; Zhang, Chao B; Wang, Jian J; Wu, Hao A; liming.gao; Justen, Jordan L; Laszlo Ersek; Ard Biesheuvel; Andrew Fish; Ni, Ray Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v6 00/14] Add the VariablePolicy feature
Responses below…
- Bret
From: Dandan Bi via groups.io
Hi Bret, We could. Right now it’s at ReadyToBoot because it’s just there as a safety net and the platform could lock it earlier. Would it work to have a PCD for which EventGroup GUID the platform
should lock on? I checked this, but I will recheck (since there’ve been a few revisions in the patches) and update the comments. Will also check for this. Such as? There are both unit tests and integration tests to ensure correct functionality and that the disable and lock interfaces work as expected. I haven’t fuzzed it or anything that
involved. I’ll take a look, but my gut says this may be an unnecessary complication. I’m happy to think about how to document this, but I’m not immediately inclined to outright say it shouldn’t be disabled. I’d be happy to say that it shouldn’t be disabled in “normal,
production configuration”, but it’s entirely reasonable to be disabled in a Manufacturing or R&R environment and we would actually prefer this be used because it would at least be consistent across platforms, rather than being something done ad hoc by each
platform that needs it. Would that be sufficient?
|
|
|
|
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
Now that 2008 is labelled and everyone can take a breather… I still need reviews on the following patches (v7)… Patch(es) 01, 02, 03,06,09,10,11,12,13,14
As such, the following email addresses may or may not be subscribed to CatFacts™ within the next 14 days if I get no responses: Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@...> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@...> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@...> Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@...>
May God have mercy on your inboxes.
- Bret
|
|
|
|
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
11 Days to go. I will single out an email every day…
Jian, today is your day. How’s it going? Life good? Yeah, I know. Things are crazy here, too. Seattle is covered in smoke. You know what would brighten things up, though? A nice “reviewed by”.
- Bret
From: Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 3:20 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; bret@... Cc: Yao, Jiewen; Zhang, Chao B; Wang, Jian J; Wu, Hao A; liming.gao; Justen, Jordan L; Laszlo Ersek; Ard Biesheuvel; Andrew Fish; Ni, Ray; liming.gao Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v6 00/14] Add the VariablePolicy feature
Now that 2008 is labelled and everyone can take a breather… I still need reviews on the following patches (v7)… Patch(es) 01, 02, 03,06,09,10,11,12,13,14
As such, the following email addresses may or may not be subscribed to CatFacts™ within the next 14 days if I get no responses: Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@...> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@...> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@...> Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@...>
May God have mercy on your inboxes.
- Bret
|
|
|
|
Laszlo Ersek
On 09/11/20 17:18, Bret Barkelew wrote:
11 Days to go. I will single out an email every day…I think we should discuss the review / maintenance status of core subsystems in edk2 on the next stewards' call (in October). A maintainer has power to block contributions by simply doing nothing. Because of this, maintainership is a big responsibility, and responsiveness is critical. If there is regularly no maintainer feedback, then the affected subsystem should be considered orphaned, and/or new co-maintainers should be added. It is not pleasant, but it does occur over time. In particular, with a fine-grained "Maintainers.txt", it's possible to assign reviewership / maintenance to feature areas / groups of subsystems. The edk2 project has to decide whether it encourages / values contributions, or if it prefers contributors to fork and go their own way. We should be clear and open about this. Whoever is willing to pony up the resources needed for maintenance gets to be maintainer. Maybe not in the orginal project but in a fork; but that's not a huge difference from this perspective -- over time, the old project can wither and the fork can take over. I'm not sure if that was the original intent with Project Mu, but when Project Mu was launched (as I perceived it), the edk2-devel list used to be *way* more lively than it is now. Displacing upstream edk2 looked unthinkable -- and like a really bad idea -- back then. But now this list, if it's not dead, smells funny. I would support adding Microsoft engineers as reviewers to core subsystems. We could do that gradually. And until we switch over to github.com completely, I'd be happy to help with merging patch sets for core subsystems that have been reviewed. (Assuming the project does not want to hand out more push access rights, in the time remaining until we switch over to github.com.) Bret, I'm really sorry it's taking so long; I know first hand it's maddening. I'm especially embarrassed, on behalf of the project, because there have been several Microsoft contributions lately, all using the mailing list based workflow correctly and natively -- and such efforts *deserve* timely feedback from maintainers. Laszlo |
|
|
|
Wang, Jian J
Hi Bret,
Sorry to hear the Seattle’s situation. I’ve been there for several times and love the city very much. Hope everything goes back normal soon.
And sorry for slow response. This patch series have been delegated to Dandan to review by Liming. She has completed security review from Intel perspective, and given back comments to you. It seems that you forgot to include her in the CC-list. Sorry I didn’t notice it and told her to do review in time. She’ll give comments ASAP.
Since MdeModulePkg is a huge package, I cannot do detail review for each patch for this package. And we have already modules reviewers designated . I think, usually, they should do the detailed review first. The package maintainer will do gate-keeper works as the last step. Correct me if any misunderstanding here.
Removed Chao from cc-list (his email is not valid) and added Dandan in loop.
Regards, Jian
From: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@...>
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 11:18 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; bret@...; Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang@...> Cc: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@...>; Zhang, Chao B <chao.b.zhang@...>; Wang, Jian J <jian.j.wang@...>; Wu, Hao A <hao.a.wu@...>; Gao, Liming <liming.gao@...>; Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.justen@...>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...>; Andrew Fish <afish@...>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@...> Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v6 00/14] Add the VariablePolicy feature
11 Days to go. I will single out an email every day…
Jian, today is your day. How’s it going? Life good? Yeah, I know. Things are crazy here, too. Seattle is covered in smoke. You know what would brighten things up, though? A nice “reviewed by”.
- Bret
From: Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Now that 2008 is labelled and everyone can take a breather… I still need reviews on the following patches (v7)… Patch(es) 01, 02, 03,06,09,10,11,12,13,14
As such, the following email addresses may or may not be subscribed to CatFacts™ within the next 14 days if I get no responses: Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@...> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@...> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@...> Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@...>
May God have mercy on your inboxes.
- Bret
|
|
|
|
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
Thanks for the update, Jian. Dandan has submitted RBs on another thread.
That leaves patches 06 and 11.
Next up, Jordan Justen. How’s it going, Jordan. We’ve never spoken directly (to my knowledge) and that’s a shame. If you had to eat a single food for the rest of your life, what would it be and can I have a Reviewed-by? Keep in mind that you probably don’t want it to be particularly strong flavors; it’s going to get disgusting eventually. I’d probably go with some simple red beans and rice or something.
- Bret
From: Wang, Jian J
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 11:42 PM To: Bret Barkelew; devel@edk2.groups.io; bret@...; Bi, Dandan Cc: Yao, Jiewen; Wu, Hao A; liming.gao; Justen, Jordan L; Laszlo Ersek; Ard Biesheuvel; Andrew Fish; Ni, Ray Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v6 00/14] Add the VariablePolicy feature
Hi Bret,
Sorry to hear the Seattle’s situation. I’ve been there for several times and love the city very much. Hope everything goes back normal soon.
And sorry for slow response. This patch series have been delegated to Dandan to review by Liming. She has completed security review from Intel perspective, and given back comments to you. It seems that you forgot to include her in the CC-list. Sorry I didn’t notice it and told her to do review in time. She’ll give comments ASAP.
Since MdeModulePkg is a huge package, I cannot do detail review for each patch for this package. And we have already modules reviewers designated . I think, usually, they should do the detailed review first. The package maintainer will do gate-keeper works as the last step. Correct me if any misunderstanding here.
Removed Chao from cc-list (his email is not valid) and added Dandan in loop.
Regards, Jian
From: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@...>
11 Days to go. I will single out an email every day…
Jian, today is your day. How’s it going? Life good? Yeah, I know. Things are crazy here, too. Seattle is covered in smoke. You know what would brighten things up, though? A nice “reviewed by”.
- Bret
From: Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Now that 2008 is labelled and everyone can take a breather… I still need reviews on the following patches (v7)… Patch(es) 01, 02, 03,06,09,10,11,12,13,14
As such, the following email addresses may or may not be subscribed to CatFacts™ within the next 14 days if I get no responses: Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@...> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@...> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@...> Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@...>
May God have mercy on your inboxes.
- Bret
|
|
|
|
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
Hmmm…. no response from Jordan. Maybe he’s still trying dishes to see what he doesn’t get sick of. It’s good to be thorough.
So, I’ll turn to you, Mr. Fish – if that is your real name and not your supervillain pseudonym. While you’ve always struck me as a gentle soul, and likely not resistant to learning more about anything, let alone our feline cohabitants, do you REALLY want to deal with a CatFacts subscription? Over a small, teensy, little code review? Reaaaaaaally?
- Bret
From: Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 1:51 PM To: Wang, Jian J; devel@edk2.groups.io; bret@...; Bi, Dandan Cc: Yao, Jiewen; Wu, Hao A; liming.gao; Justen, Jordan L; Laszlo Ersek; Ard Biesheuvel; Andrew Fish; Ni, Ray Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v6 00/14] Add the VariablePolicy feature
Thanks for the update, Jian. Dandan has submitted RBs on another thread.
That leaves patches 06 and 11.
Next up, Jordan Justen. How’s it going, Jordan. We’ve never spoken directly (to my knowledge) and that’s a shame. If you had to eat a single food for the rest of your life, what would it be and can I have a Reviewed-by? Keep in mind that you probably don’t want it to be particularly strong flavors; it’s going to get disgusting eventually. I’d probably go with some simple red beans and rice or something.
- Bret
From: Wang, Jian J
Hi Bret,
Sorry to hear the Seattle’s situation. I’ve been there for several times and love the city very much. Hope everything goes back normal soon.
And sorry for slow response. This patch series have been delegated to Dandan to review by Liming. She has completed security review from Intel perspective, and given back comments to you. It seems that you forgot to include her in the CC-list. Sorry I didn’t notice it and told her to do review in time. She’ll give comments ASAP.
Since MdeModulePkg is a huge package, I cannot do detail review for each patch for this package. And we have already modules reviewers designated . I think, usually, they should do the detailed review first. The package maintainer will do gate-keeper works as the last step. Correct me if any misunderstanding here.
Removed Chao from cc-list (his email is not valid) and added Dandan in loop.
Regards, Jian
From: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@...>
11 Days to go. I will single out an email every day…
Jian, today is your day. How’s it going? Life good? Yeah, I know. Things are crazy here, too. Seattle is covered in smoke. You know what would brighten things up, though? A nice “reviewed by”.
- Bret
From: Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Now that 2008 is labelled and everyone can take a breather… I still need reviews on the following patches (v7)… Patch(es) 01, 02, 03,06,09,10,11,12,13,14
As such, the following email addresses may or may not be subscribed to CatFacts™ within the next 14 days if I get no responses: Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@...> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@...> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@...> Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@...>
May God have mercy on your inboxes.
- Bret
|
|
|
|
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
24 hours before Andrew Fish, Jordan Justen, and Ray Ni are enrolled in CatFacts. You’ll learn things you never knew! (That’s the definition of learning.)
- Bret
From: Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 11:55 PM To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Wang, Jian J; bret@...; Bi, Dandan Cc: Yao, Jiewen; Wu, Hao A; liming.gao; Justen, Jordan L; Laszlo Ersek; Ard Biesheuvel; Andrew Fish; Ni, Ray Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v6 00/14] Add the VariablePolicy feature
Hmmm…. no response from Jordan. Maybe he’s still trying dishes to see what he doesn’t get sick of. It’s good to be thorough.
So, I’ll turn to you, Mr. Fish – if that is your real name and not your supervillain pseudonym. While you’ve always struck me as a gentle soul, and likely not resistant to learning more about anything, let alone our feline cohabitants, do you REALLY want to deal with a CatFacts subscription? Over a small, teensy, little code review? Reaaaaaaally?
- Bret
From: Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Thanks for the update, Jian. Dandan has submitted RBs on another thread.
That leaves patches 06 and 11.
Next up, Jordan Justen. How’s it going, Jordan. We’ve never spoken directly (to my knowledge) and that’s a shame. If you had to eat a single food for the rest of your life, what would it be and can I have a Reviewed-by? Keep in mind that you probably don’t want it to be particularly strong flavors; it’s going to get disgusting eventually. I’d probably go with some simple red beans and rice or something.
- Bret
From: Wang, Jian J
Hi Bret,
Sorry to hear the Seattle’s situation. I’ve been there for several times and love the city very much. Hope everything goes back normal soon.
And sorry for slow response. This patch series have been delegated to Dandan to review by Liming. She has completed security review from Intel perspective, and given back comments to you. It seems that you forgot to include her in the CC-list. Sorry I didn’t notice it and told her to do review in time. She’ll give comments ASAP.
Since MdeModulePkg is a huge package, I cannot do detail review for each patch for this package. And we have already modules reviewers designated . I think, usually, they should do the detailed review first. The package maintainer will do gate-keeper works as the last step. Correct me if any misunderstanding here.
Removed Chao from cc-list (his email is not valid) and added Dandan in loop.
Regards, Jian
From: Bret Barkelew <Bret.Barkelew@...>
11 Days to go. I will single out an email every day…
Jian, today is your day. How’s it going? Life good? Yeah, I know. Things are crazy here, too. Seattle is covered in smoke. You know what would brighten things up, though? A nice “reviewed by”.
- Bret
From: Bret Barkelew via groups.io
Now that 2008 is labelled and everyone can take a breather… I still need reviews on the following patches (v7)… Patch(es) 01, 02, 03,06,09,10,11,12,13,14
As such, the following email addresses may or may not be subscribed to CatFacts™ within the next 14 days if I get no responses: Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@...> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@...> Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@...> Cc: Chao Zhang <chao.b.zhang@...>
May God have mercy on your inboxes.
- Bret
|
|
|