Date   

Re: Trouble building EmulatorPkg

Eugene Khoruzhenko
 

Thanks Sean, this was very helpful!


Re: Trouble building EmulatorPkg

Sean
 

Master of github.com/spbrogan/edk2 should have everything needed.
It is based on master of edk2 from 2 days ago plus changes i have been making to enable platform ci.

I can't help with VS2013. We have focused PyTool efforts on N, and N-1 of VS. So that VS2019 and 2017. Also these two versions are in the new model of having multiple instances of VS so our scheme takes advantage of VSWhere and a more dynamic VS configuration.

See here: https://github.com/spbrogan/edk2/commit/c6d4cda2561a0ec688ac3047611af48f137ec9df or https://github.com/spbrogan/edk2/blob/master/EmulatorPkg/Win/Host/WinHost.inf#L90 to see the addition for VS2019

Thanks
Sean


Re: Trouble building EmulatorPkg

Eugene Khoruzhenko
 

Sean, thanks for the quick reply. Which branch/tag are you referring to? I am trying to build from "master" and building with VS2019 is not working. Looking at WinHost.inf, it only mentions VS2015 and VS2017, so VS2019 cannot be supported as checked-in in the master branch.

Also, I really need to use VS2013 as the rest of my environment, including debugger, work in VS2013...


Re: Trouble building EmulatorPkg

Sean
 

I have been building this recently for a POC showing how we (tianocore) can do Platform CI. As part of that I have enabled the emulatorpkg to use PyTools platform building. This works for VS2017 and VS2019 IA32 and X64. PyTools does all the environment and path management to setup the correct libs, includes, etc.

Help here. https://github.com/spbrogan/edk2/blob/master/EmulatorPkg/README-pytools.md
Server build and execution of emulator shown here. https://dev.azure.com/tianocore/edk2-ci-play/_build/results?buildId=5200&view=results

If that is helpful or you have feedback let me know.

Thanks
Sean


Re: Trouble building EmulatorPkg

Eugene Khoruzhenko
 

Found the problem - the build seems to be hardcoded for VS2017. The Winhost makefile in VS2013 build has DLINK_FLAGS that's missing all the necessary libraries. The EmulatorPkg documentation, such as Readme.md, should specify that only specific Visual Studio is supported.


SMBIOS: are there any fields which hold be negative values?

Rebecca Cran
 

Before I send a patch, I wanted to check if anyone knew whether there are any fields in the SMBIOS specification which can be negative? I haven't across any, and the current code for smbiosview prints struct fields with "%d", which can cause large values (such as DIMM sizes) to be printed incorrectly.


--
Rebecca Cran


Trouble building EmulatorPkg

Eugene Khoruzhenko
 

As described in Readme.md, building 64bit emulator in Windows:
build -p EmulatorPkg\EmulatorPkg.dsc -t VS2013 -a X64

But getting an error linking WinHost:
d:/src/edk2/Build/EmulatorX64/DEBUG_VS2013/X64/EmulatorPkg/Library/SecPeiServicesLib/SecPeiServicesLib/OUTPUT/SecPeiServicesLib.lib
d:/src/edk2/Build/EmulatorX64/DEBUG_VS2013/X64/MdeModulePkg/Library/FrameBufferBltLib/FrameBufferBltLib/OUTPUT/FrameBufferBltLib.lib
LINK : warning LNK4108: /ALIGN specified without /DRIVER; image may not run
LINK : warning LNK4001: no object files specified; libraries used
LINK : warning LNK4068: /MACHINE not specified; defaulting to X86
LINK : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _ModuleEntryPoint
d:\src\edk2\Build\EmulatorX64\DEBUG_VS2013\X64\WinHost.lib : fatal error LNK1120: 1 unresolved externals
NMAKE : fatal error U1077: '"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\Vc\bin\x86_amd64\link.exe"' : return code '0x460'
Stop.

Tried building IA32 - getting the following errors (also linking WinHost):
WinHost.lib(WinHost.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__OpenProcessToken@12
WinHost.lib(WinHost.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__AdjustTokenPrivileges@24
WinHost.lib(WinHost.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__LookupPrivilegeValueW@12
WinHost.lib(WinThunk.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__timeSetEvent@20
WinHost.lib(WinThunk.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__timeKillEvent@4
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__SetDIBitsToDevice@48
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__GetMessageW@16
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__TranslateMessage@4
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__DispatchMessageW@4
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__SendMessageW@16
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__DefWindowProcW@16
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__PostQuitMessage@4
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__UnregisterClassW@8
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__RegisterClassExW@4
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__CreateWindowExW@48
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__DestroyWindow@4
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__ShowWindow@8
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__MoveWindow@24
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__UpdateWindow@4
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__BeginPaint@8
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__EndPaint@8
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__InvalidateRect@12
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__GetWindowRect@8
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__AdjustWindowRect@12
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__LoadCursorW@8
WinHost.lib(WinGopScreen.obj) : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol __imp__LoadIconW@8
d:\src\edk2\Build\EmulatorIA32\DEBUG_VS2013\IA32\WinHost.exe : fatal error LNK1120: 26 unresolved externals
Building ... d:\src\edk2\MdeModulePkg\Universal\PCD\Dxe\Pcd.inf [IA32]
Building ... d:\src\edk2\MdeModulePkg\Universal\Console\TerminalDxe\TerminalDxe.inf [IA32]
NMAKE : fatal error U1077: '"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 12.0\Vc\bin\link.exe"' : return code '0x460'

I tried to checkout different stable edk2 tags like tags/edk2-stable202002 - same issues. I tried building on 3 different machines with different Visual Studios - same problems. Is there any trick building EmulatorPkg?


Re: Resolution and graphical issues with OVMF firmware and MacOS?

Laszlo Ersek
 

On 03/26/20 22:43, n.sherlock@gmail.com wrote:
The issue has been somewhat lost in translation here. The screen
resolution is remembered just fine by OVMF.

The symptom is that OVMF doesn't yet apply the chosen resolution
(1920x1080) on the boot logo screen, it stays in the low resolution
default (800x600?). You can see this by the large size of the Proxmox
boot logo on the screen (where the Tianocore logo would normally be):

https://i.imgur.com/NL9QlKv.png

Then when macOS boots, it looks like it thinks the framebuffer is only
800x600, but it has actually been resized to 1920x1080 by the Clover
bootloader. This causes the Apple logo to appear at the top left
corner of the framebuffer, and macOS fails to boot:

https://i.imgur.com/kuq9KqI.png

However, if you hit F2 during boot to enter OVMF, and simply hit
"Reset", the 1920x1080 chosen resolution gets correctly applied to the
boot logo screen:

https://i.imgur.com/CnL6df2.png

And now the size that macOS thinks the framebuffer is matches with the
actual resolution, the Apple logo is correctly centred, and boot
proceeds normally:

https://i.imgur.com/HvdoDml.png

Can you reproduce this quirk with the resolution of the boot logo
screen?
If I understand correctly, the complaint is that the resolution chosen
in the Setup TUI is not applied *at once*, without a reboot.

If I do understand correctly, then this is intended / by-design
behavior. Please read the "OVMF Settings" form carefully:

Preferred Resolution at 640x480 You can specify a new
Next Boot preference for the
Change Preferred <640x480> Graphics Console
Resolution for Next Boot here. The list is
Commit Changes and Exit filtered against the
Discard Changes and Exit video RAM size.

Cue the expression "Next Boot" in both of:

- "Preferred Resolution at *Next Boot*"

- "Change Preferred Resolution for *Next Boot*"

This is because, by the time the setup browser is entered, and the user
is given the opportunity for modifying the setting, the setting has
already been consumed by more foundational parts of the firmware.

If you want the changed resolution to take effect, before you boot the
OS, you *must* reboot at this point.

The dialog itself does not reboot automatically because (a) you might
want to change other configuration options in the setup TUI, (b) you
might even want to boot to e.g. the UEFI Shell with the presently active
resolution, perform some changes at the shell prompt, and reboot *then*.

So, after hitting Enter on "Commit Changes and Exit" (which returns you
to "Device Manager"), press ESC one (which will take you back to the
outermost menu), and there, select "Reset".

Thanks
Laszlo


Re: Resolution and graphical issues with OVMF firmware and MacOS?

n.sherlock@...
 

The issue has been somewhat lost in translation here. The screen resolution is remembered just fine by OVMF.

The symptom is that OVMF doesn't yet apply the chosen resolution (1920x1080) on the boot logo screen, it stays in the low resolution default (800x600?). You can see this by the large size of the Proxmox boot logo on the screen (where the Tianocore logo would normally be):

https://i.imgur.com/NL9QlKv.png

Then when macOS boots, it looks like it thinks the framebuffer is only 800x600, but it has actually been resized to 1920x1080 by the Clover bootloader. This causes the Apple logo to appear at the top left corner of the framebuffer, and macOS fails to boot:

https://i.imgur.com/kuq9KqI.png

However, if you hit F2 during boot to enter OVMF, and simply hit "Reset", the 1920x1080 chosen resolution gets correctly applied to the boot logo screen:

https://i.imgur.com/CnL6df2.png

And now the size that macOS thinks the framebuffer is matches with the actual resolution, the Apple logo is correctly centred, and boot proceeds normally:

https://i.imgur.com/HvdoDml.png

Can you reproduce this quirk with the resolution of the boot logo screen?

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock


Re: Resolution and graphical issues with OVMF firmware and MacOS?

Laszlo Ersek
 

On 03/24/20 14:49, victorhooi via Groups.Io wrote:
Hi,

I'm following this guide:

https://www.nicksherlock.com/2019/10/installing-macos-catalina-10-15-on-proxmox-6/

in order to install MacOS on a Proxmox system.

However, there appears to be a bug in the OVMF firmware - where you need to go into the OVMF Platform configuration, and set the resolution again on *every* boot in order to get it to boot.

Follow the steps above to set the screen resolution to 1920×1080, press F10 to save your changes, and “reset” to apply the new settings (not “continue”). This step is required to avoid scrambled graphics on boot and a hang (Clover resolution must match OVMF resolution, or else the Apple logo will be off-centre and the progress bar will be smeared across the screen, resulting in a lockup).
Note that in future you’ll find that when initially started, your VM doesn’t properly apply the the 1920×1080 screen resolution until you hit “Restart Computer” in Clover when the Clover menu appears (or “Reset” on the VM). You’ll notice this happening when the “Proxmox” logo fills a large area of the screen on boot due to the low resolution.
If you don't - you will get scrambled graphics when you boot up.

Is there some way of fixing this in the OVMF firmware itself?
Please talk to the Proxmox developers and/or the author of the guide you
linked above. There is no bug in OVMF in the area you mention -- it
works just fine on QEMU, using pflash for backing the UEFI variable
store. I don't know why the 1920x1080 screen resolution doesn't "stick"
for you, using proxmox; the resolution certainly sticks when
non-volatile UEFI variables are actually non-volatile.

Thanks
Laszlo


Resolution and graphical issues with OVMF firmware and MacOS?

victorhooi@...
 

Hi,

I'm following this guide:

https://www.nicksherlock.com/2019/10/installing-macos-catalina-10-15-on-proxmox-6/

in order to install MacOS on a Proxmox system.

However, there appears to be a bug in the OVMF firmware - where you need to go into the OVMF Platform configuration, and set the resolution again on *every* boot in order to get it to boot.

Follow the steps above to set the screen resolution to 1920×1080, press F10 to save your changes, and “reset” to apply the new settings (not “continue”). This step is required to avoid scrambled graphics on boot and a hang (Clover resolution must match OVMF resolution, or else the Apple logo will be off-centre and the progress bar will be smeared across the screen, resulting in a lockup).
Note that in future you’ll find that when initially started, your VM doesn’t properly apply the the 1920×1080 screen resolution until you hit “Restart Computer” in Clover when the Clover menu appears (or “Reset” on the VM). You’ll notice this happening when the “Proxmox” logo fills a large area of the screen on boot due to the low resolution.
If you don't - you will get scrambled graphics when you boot up.

Is there some way of fixing this in the OVMF firmware itself?

Thanks,
Victor


Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-discuss] Questions about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable

Tiger Liu(BJ-RD)
 

Hi, Bret:
Thanks for your reply!
You are right.

Best wishes,

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> 代表 Bret Barkelew via Groups.Io
发送时间: 2020年3月20日 3:23
收件人: discuss@edk2.groups.io; Tiger Liu(BJ-RD) <TigerLiu@zhaoxin.com>
主题: Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-discuss] Questions about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable

Wait… I take that back. I was mistaken about which PCD we were talking about (answering email too fast).

This is an older version of the MAT enablement that was found to be incompatible in a number of scenarios. The correct MAT table should be produced automatically by DXE as long as your images are EFI_PAGE_SIZE aligned…

https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Misc/MemoryAttributesTable.c

- Bret

From: Bret Barkelew via Groups.Io<mailto:bret.barkelew=microsoft.com@groups.io>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 12:07 PM
To: discuss@edk2.groups.io<mailto:discuss@edk2.groups.io>; tigerliu@zhaoxin.com<mailto:tigerliu@zhaoxin.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-discuss] Questions about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable

I think our (MS Core UEFI) opinion would be that the default should change to TRUE.

- Bret

________________________________
From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> on behalf of Tiger Liu(BJ-RD) via Groups.Io <tigerliu=zhaoxin.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 9:00:17 PM
To: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-discuss] Questions about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable

Hi, Experts:
I have a question about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable.
Device protection in Windows Security, standard hardware security requirement is described as below:
TPM 2.0
Secure Boot Enabled
DEP
UEFI MAT

And UEFI MAT feature is related with PcdPropertiesTableEnable.

But I found the newest UDK kernel, this PCD is still set with FALSE.

So, is there any concerns if setting its default value as TRUE.

Thanks











保密声明:
本邮件含有保密或专有信息,仅供指定收件人使用。严禁对本邮件或其内容做任何未经授权的查阅、使用、复制或转发。
CONFIDENTIAL NOTE:
This email contains confidential or legally privileged information and is for the sole use of its intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use, copying or forwarding of this email or the content of this email is strictly prohibited.


Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-discuss] Questions about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable

Bret Barkelew
 

Wait… I take that back. I was mistaken about which PCD we were talking about (answering email too fast).

This is an older version of the MAT enablement that was found to be incompatible in a number of scenarios. The correct MAT table should be produced automatically by DXE as long as your images are EFI_PAGE_SIZE aligned…

https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdeModulePkg/Core/Dxe/Misc/MemoryAttributesTable.c

- Bret

From: Bret Barkelew via Groups.Io<mailto:bret.barkelew=microsoft.com@groups.io>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 12:07 PM
To: discuss@edk2.groups.io<mailto:discuss@edk2.groups.io>; tigerliu@zhaoxin.com<mailto:tigerliu@zhaoxin.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-discuss] Questions about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable

I think our (MS Core UEFI) opinion would be that the default should change to TRUE.

- Bret

________________________________
From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> on behalf of Tiger Liu(BJ-RD) via Groups.Io <tigerliu=zhaoxin.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 9:00:17 PM
To: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-discuss] Questions about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable

Hi, Experts:
I have a question about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable.
Device protection in Windows Security, standard hardware security requirement is described as below:
TPM 2.0
Secure Boot Enabled
DEP
UEFI MAT

And UEFI MAT feature is related with PcdPropertiesTableEnable.

But I found the newest UDK kernel, this PCD is still set with FALSE.

So, is there any concerns if setting its default value as TRUE.

Thanks


Re: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-discuss] Questions about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable

Bret Barkelew
 

I think our (MS Core UEFI) opinion would be that the default should change to TRUE.

- Bret

________________________________
From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> on behalf of Tiger Liu(BJ-RD) via Groups.Io <tigerliu=zhaoxin.com@groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 9:00:17 PM
To: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-discuss] Questions about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable

Hi, Experts:
I have a question about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable.
Device protection in Windows Security, standard hardware security requirement is described as below:
TPM 2.0
Secure Boot Enabled
DEP
UEFI MAT

And UEFI MAT feature is related with PcdPropertiesTableEnable.

But I found the newest UDK kernel, this PCD is still set with FALSE.

So, is there any concerns if setting its default value as TRUE.

Thanks


Questions about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable

Tiger Liu(BJ-RD)
 

Hi, Experts:
I have a question about UEFI MAT / PcdPropertiesTableEnable.
Device protection in Windows Security, standard hardware security requirement is described as below:
TPM 2.0
Secure Boot Enabled
DEP
UEFI MAT

And UEFI MAT feature is related with PcdPropertiesTableEnable.

But I found the newest UDK kernel, this PCD is still set with FALSE.

So, is there any concerns if setting its default value as TRUE.

Thanks


Re: [edk2-devel] A problem with live migration of UEFI virtual machines

Laszlo Ersek
 

On 02/28/20 12:47, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 02/28/20 05:04, Andrew Fish wrote:
Given the above it seems like the 2 options are:
1) Pad OVMF_CODE.fd to be very large so there is room to grow.
There's already room to grow, *inside* OVMF_CODE.fd. As I've shown
elsewhere in this thread, even the 2MB build has approx. 457 KB free in
the DXEFV volume, even without link-time optimization and without
DEBUG/ASSERT stripping, if you don't enable additional features.
Typo; I meant FVMAIN_COMPACT, not DXEFV.

Laszlo


Re: [edk2-devel] A problem with live migration of UEFI virtual machines

Laszlo Ersek
 

On 02/28/20 05:04, Andrew Fish wrote:

Maybe I was overcomplicating this. Given your explanation I think the part I'm missing is OVMF is implying FLASH layout, in this split model, based on the size of the OVMF_CODE.fd and OVMF_VARS.fd. Given that if OVMF_CODE.fd gets bigger the variable address changes from a QEMU point of view. So basically it is the QEMU API that is making assumptions about the relative layout of the FD in the split model that makes a migration to larger ROM not work.
No, QEMU does not make any assumptions here. QEMU simply grabs both
pflash chips (the order is not random, it can be specified on the
command line -- in fact the QEMU user is expected to specify in the
right order), and then QEMU maps them in decreasing address order from
4GB in guest-phys address space.

If we enlarge OVMF_CODE.fd, then the base address of the varstore
(PcdOvmfFlashNvStorageVariableBase) will sink. That's not a problem per
se, because QEMU doesn't know about PcdOvmfFlashNvStorageVariableBase at
all. QEMU will simply map the varstore, automatically, where the
enlarged OVMF_CODE.fd will look for it.

Basically the -pflash API does not support changing the size of the ROM without moving NVRAM given the way it is currently defined.
Let me put it like this: the NVRAM gets moved by virtue of how OVMF is
built, and by how QEMU maps the pflash chips into guest-phys address
space. They are in sync, automatically.

The problem is when the NVRAM is internally restructured, or resized --
the new OVMF_CODE.fd binary will reflect this with changed PCDs, and
look for "stuff" at those addresses. But if you still try to use an old
(differently sized, or differently structured) varstore file, while QEMU
will happily map it, parts of the NVRAM will just not end up in places
where OVMF_CODE.fd expects them.


Given the above it seems like the 2 options are:
1) Pad OVMF_CODE.fd to be very large so there is room to grow.
There's already room to grow, *inside* OVMF_CODE.fd. As I've shown
elsewhere in this thread, even the 2MB build has approx. 457 KB free in
the DXEFV volume, even without link-time optimization and without
DEBUG/ASSERT stripping, if you don't enable additional features.

2) Add some feature to QUEM that allows the variable store address to not be based on OVMF_CODE.fd size.
Yes, this has been proposed over time.

It wouldn't help with the case when you change the internal structure of
the NVRAM, and try to run an incompatible OVMF_CODE.fd against that.

I did see this [1] and combined with your email I either understand, or I'm still confused? :)

I'm not saying we need to change anything, I'm just trying to make sure I understand how OVMF and QEMU are tied to together.
I think the most interesting function for you could be
pc_system_flash_map(), in "hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c", in the QEMU source.


[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2019-January/msg01031.html

Thanks
Laszlo


Re: [edk2-devel] A problem with live migration of UEFI virtual machines

Laszlo Ersek
 

On 02/28/20 04:20, Zhoujian (jay) wrote:
Hi Laszlo,

-----Original Message-----
From: Qemu-devel
[mailto:qemu-devel-bounces+jianjay.zhou=huawei.com@nongnu.org] On Behalf
Of Laszlo Ersek
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 5:42 PM
To: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io
Cc: berrange@redhat.com; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Dr. David Alan Gilbert
<dgilbert@redhat.com>; zhoujianjay <zhoujianjay@gmail.com>; discuss
<discuss@edk2.groups.io>; Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>;
wuchenye1995 <wuchenye1995@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] A problem with live migration of UEFI virtual machines

Hi Andrew,

On 02/25/20 22:35, Andrew Fish wrote:

Laszlo,

The FLASH offsets changing breaking things makes sense.

I now realize this is like updating the EFI ROM without rebooting the
system. Thus changes in how the new EFI code works is not the issue.

Is this migration event visible to the firmware? Traditionally the
NVRAM is a region in the FD so if you update the FD you have to skip
NVRAM region or save and restore it. Is that activity happening in
this case? Even if the ROM layout does not change how do you not lose
the contents of the NVRAM store when the live migration happens? Sorry
if this is a remedial question but I'm trying to learn how this
migration works.
With live migration, the running guest doesn't notice anything. This is a general
requirement for live migration (regardless of UEFI or flash).

You are very correct to ask about "skipping" the NVRAM region. With the
approach that OvmfPkg originally supported, live migration would simply be
unfeasible. The "build" utility would produce a single (unified) OVMF.fd file, which
would contain both NVRAM and executable regions, and the guest's variable
updates would modify the one file that would exist.
This is inappropriate even without considering live migration, because OVMF
binary upgrades (package updates) on the virtualization host would force guests
to lose their private variable stores (NVRAMs).

Therefore, the "build" utility produces "split" files too, in addition to the unified
OVMF.fd file. Namely, OVMF_CODE.fd and OVMF_VARS.fd.
OVMF.fd is simply the concatenation of the latter two.

$ cat OVMF_VARS.fd OVMF_CODE.fd | cmp - OVMF.fd [prints nothing]

When you define a new domain (VM) on a virtualization host, the domain
definition saves a reference (pathname) to the OVMF_CODE.fd file.
However, the OVMF_VARS.fd file (the variable store *template*) is not directly
referenced; instead, it is *copied* into a separate (private) file for the domain.

Furthermore, once booted, guest has two flash chips, one that maps the
firmware executable OVMF_CODE.fd read-only, and another pflash chip that
maps its private varstore file read-write.

This makes it possible to upgrade OVMF_CODE.fd and OVMF_VARS.fd (via
package upgrades on the virt host) without messing with varstores that were
earlier instantiated from OVMF_VARS.fd. What's important here is that the
various constants in the new (upgraded) OVMF_CODE.fd file remain compatible
with the *old* OVMF_VARS.fd structure, across package upgrades.

If that's not possible for introducing e.g. a new feature, then the package
upgrade must not overwrite the OVMF_CODE.fd file in place, but must provide an
additional firmware binary. This firmware binary can then only be used by freshly
defined domains (old domains cannot be switched over). Old domains can be
switched over manually -- and only if the sysadmin decides it is OK to lose the
current variable store contents. Then the old varstore file for the domain is
deleted (manually), the domain definition is updated, and then a new (logically
empty, pristine) varstore can be created from the *new* OVMF_2_VARS.fd that
matches the *new* OVMF_2_CODE.fd.


During live migration, the "RAM-like" contents of both pflash chips are migrated
(the guest-side view of both chips remains the same, including the case when the
writeable chip happens to be in "programming mode", i.e., during a UEFI variable
write through the Fault Tolerant Write and Firmware Volume Block(2) protocols).

Once live migration completes, QEMU dumps the full contents of the writeable
chip to the backing file (on the destination host). Going forward, flash writes from
within the guest are reflected to said host-side file on-line, just like it happened
on the source host before live migration. If the file backing the r/w pflash chip is
on NFS (shared by both src and dst hosts), then this one-time dumping when the
migration completes is superfluous, but it's also harmless.

The interesting question is, what happens when you power down the VM on the
destination host (= post migration), and launch it again there, from zero. In that
case, the firmware executable file comes from the *destination host* (it was
never persistently migrated from the source host, i.e. never written out on the
dst). It simply comes from the OVMF package that had been installed on the
destination host, by the sysadmin. However, the varstore pflash does reflect the
permanent result of the previous migration. So this is where things can fall apart,
if both firmware binaries (on the src host and on the dst host) don't agree about
the internal structure of the varstore pflash.
Hi Laszlo,

I found an ealier thread that you said there're 4 options to use ovmf:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-discuss/2018-04/msg00045.html

Excerpt:
"(1) If you map the unified image with -bios, all of that becomes ROM --
read-only memory.
(2) If you map the unified image with -pflash, all of that becomes
read-write MMIO.
(3) If you use the split images (OVMF_CODE.fd and a copy of
OVMF_VARS.fd), and map then as flash chips, then the top part
(OVMF_CODE.fd, consisting of SECFV and FVMAIN_COMPACT) becomes
read-only flash (MMIO), and the bottom part (copy of OVMF_VARS.fd,
consisting of FTW Spare, FTW Work, Event log, and NV store) becomes
read-write flash (MMIO).
(4) If you use -bios with OVMF_CODE.fd only, then the top part will be
ROM, and the bottom part will be "black hole" MMIO."

I think you're talking about the option (2)(acceptable) and option (3)
(best solution) in this thread, and I agree.
Yes, exactly.


I'm wondering will it be different about ancient option (1) with live
migration. You tried add -DMEM_VARSTORE_EMU_ENABLE=FALSE
build flag to disable -bios support, but Option (1) may be used for the
old VMs started several years ago running on the cloud...
I'm unaware of any VMs running in clouds that use "-bios" with OVMF. It
certainly seems a terrible idea, regardless of live migration.


With developing new features, the size of OVMF.fd is becoming larger
and larger, that seems to be the trend. It would be nice if it could be
hot-updated to the new version. As Daniel said, could it feasible to add
zero-padding to the firmware images?
You're mixing up small details. OVMF_CODE.fd is already heavily padded,
internally. We've grown the *internal* DXEFV firmware volume repeatedly
over *years*, without *any* disruption to users. Please see:

- da78c88f4535 ("OvmfPkg: raise DXEFV size to 8 MB", 2014-03-05)

- 08df58ec3043 ("OvmfPkg: raise DXEFV size to 9 MB", 2015-10-07)

- 2f7b34b20842 ("OvmfPkg: raise DXEFV size to 10 MB", 2016-05-31)

- d272449d9e1e ("OvmfPkg: raise DXEFV size to 11 MB", 2018-05-29)

To this day, i.e., with edk2 master @ edfe16a6d9f8, you can build OVMF
in the default feature configuration [*] for -D FD_SIZE_2MB.

[*]
DEFINE SECURE_BOOT_ENABLE = FALSE
DEFINE SMM_REQUIRE = FALSE
DEFINE SOURCE_DEBUG_ENABLE = FALSE
DEFINE TPM2_ENABLE = FALSE
DEFINE TPM2_CONFIG_ENABLE = FALSE

DEFINE NETWORK_TLS_ENABLE = FALSE
DEFINE NETWORK_IP6_ENABLE = FALSE
DEFINE NETWORK_HTTP_BOOT_ENABLE = FALSE

For example:

$ build \
-a IA32 -a X64 \
-b DEBUG \
-p OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc \
-t GCC48 \
-D FD_SIZE_2MB

Note that this build will contain DEBUG messages (at least DEBUG_INFO
level ones) and ASSERT()s too.

The final usage report at the end of the command is:

SECFV [14%Full] 212992 total, 31648 used, 181344 free
PEIFV [31%Full] 917504 total, 284584 used, 632920 free
DXEFV [44%Full] 11534336 total, 5113688 used, 6420648 free
FVMAIN_COMPACT [73%Full] 1753088 total, 1284216 used, 468872 free

What does that mean? It means that largest firmware volume, DXEFV, uses
just 44% of the 11MB allotted size.

And FVMAIN_COMPACT, which embeds (among other things) DXEFV in
LZMA-compressed format, only uses 73% of its allotted size, which is
1712 KB.

All this means that in the default feature config, there's still a bunch
of room free in the 2MB build, even with DEBUGs and ASSERT()s enabled,
and with an old compiler that does not do link-time optimization.

I think you must have misunderstood the purpose of the 4MB build. The
4MB build was solely introduced for enlarging the *varstore*. That was
motivated by passing an SVVP check. This is described in detail in the
relevant commit, which I may have linked earlier.

https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/b24fca05751f

(Please consult the diagram in the commit message carefully. It shows
you how the various firmware volumes / flash devices are nested; it will
help you understand where the 1712 KB FVMAIN_COMPACT firmware volume is
placed in the final image, and how FVMAIN_COMPACT embeds / compresses
DXEFV.)

And *given that* we had to introduce an incompatible change (for
enlarging the varstore, for SVVP's sake), it made sense to *also*
enlarge the other parts of the flash content. But the motivation was
strictly the varstore change, and that was inevitably an incompatible
change. In fact, you can see in the commit message that the *outer*
container FVMAIN_COMPACT was enlarged from 1712 to 3360 kilobytes, the
embedded PEIFV and DXEFV firmware volumes didn't put that extra space to
use. The SECFV firmware volume runs directly from flash, so it's not
compressed, but even that firmware volume got no "space injection". So
basically all the size increase that *could* have been exploited for
executable code size was spent on padding.

As far as I can tell, we have never broken compatibility due to
executable code size increases.

Sorry if I over-explained this; I simply don't know how to express this
any better.


Things are a little different here,
i.e. the size of src and dest are 2M and 4M respectively, copy the source
2M to the dest side, and then add zero-padding to the end of the image
to round it upto 4 MB at the dest side (With some modification of
qemu_ram_resize in QEMU to avoid length mismatch error report)?
No, this doesn't make any sense.

On both the source host and the destination host, the same pathname (for
example, "/usr/share/OVMF/OVMF_CODE.fd") must point to same-size
(compatible) firmware binaries. Both must be built with the same -D
FD_SIZE_2MB flag, or with the same -D FD_SIZE_4MB flag. Then you can
migrate.

You can offer a 4MB build too on the destination host, but it must be
under a different pathname. So that after the domain has been migrated
in from the source host, and then re-launched against the firmware
binary that's on the destination host, there is an incompatibility
between the domain's *original* varstore, and the domain's *new*
firmware binary.


The physical address assigned to ovmf region will change from
0xffe00000 - 0xffffffff to 0xffc00000 - 0xffffffff, after the OS has
started I see this range will be recycled and assigned to other PCI
devices(using the command "cat /proc/iomem") by guest OS. So,
this range change seems that will not affect the guest I think.
But if the code of OVMF is running when paused at the src side
then will it be continued to run at the dest side, I'm not sure...

So, may I ask that would it be feasible or compatible for option (1)
when live migration between different ovmf sizes? Thanks.
Sorry, my brain just cannot cope with the idea of even *running* OVMF in
production with "-bios" -- let alone migrate it.

But anyway... if you are dead set on this, you can try the following:

- On the destination host, rename the 4MB build to a different filename.

- On the destination host, update all your domain definitions to refer
to the renamed filename with "-bios"

- on the destination host, rebuild your current (more modern) firmware
package, using the -D FD_SIZE_2MB flag. If you have not enabled a bunch
of features meanwhile, it will actually succeed.

- on the destination host, put this fresh build (with unified size 2MB)
in the original place (using the original pathname)

- now you can migrate domains from your source host. The pathname they
refer to with "-bios" will exist, and it will be a 2MB build. And the
contents of that build will be more modern (presumably) than what you
are migrating away from.

Please understand this: when you *allowed* OVMF to build with 4MB size,
and installed it under the exact same pathname (on the destination host)
where you previously used to keep a 2MB binary, *that* is when you broke
compatibility.

What's quite unfathomable to me is that the 2MB->4MB change in upstream
was *solely* motivated by varstore enlargement (for passing SVVP with
*flash*-based variables), but you're still using the ancient and
non-conformant \NvVars emulation that comes with "-bios".

Please, flash based variables with OVMF and QEMU have been supported
since QEMU v1.6.

I've attempted to remove -bios support from OVMF multiple times, I've
always been prevented from doing that, and the damage is obvious only now.

Laszlo


Re: [edk2-devel] A problem with live migration of UEFI virtual machines

Laszlo Ersek
 

Hi Andrew,

On 02/25/20 22:35, Andrew Fish wrote:

Laszlo,

The FLASH offsets changing breaking things makes sense.

I now realize this is like updating the EFI ROM without rebooting the
system. Thus changes in how the new EFI code works is not the issue.

Is this migration event visible to the firmware? Traditionally the
NVRAM is a region in the FD so if you update the FD you have to skip
NVRAM region or save and restore it. Is that activity happening in
this case? Even if the ROM layout does not change how do you not lose
the contents of the NVRAM store when the live migration happens? Sorry
if this is a remedial question but I'm trying to learn how this
migration works.
With live migration, the running guest doesn't notice anything. This is
a general requirement for live migration (regardless of UEFI or flash).

You are very correct to ask about "skipping" the NVRAM region. With the
approach that OvmfPkg originally supported, live migration would simply
be unfeasible. The "build" utility would produce a single (unified)
OVMF.fd file, which would contain both NVRAM and executable regions, and
the guest's variable updates would modify the one file that would exist.
This is inappropriate even without considering live migration, because
OVMF binary upgrades (package updates) on the virtualization host would
force guests to lose their private variable stores (NVRAMs).

Therefore, the "build" utility produces "split" files too, in addition
to the unified OVMF.fd file. Namely, OVMF_CODE.fd and OVMF_VARS.fd.
OVMF.fd is simply the concatenation of the latter two.

$ cat OVMF_VARS.fd OVMF_CODE.fd | cmp - OVMF.fd
[prints nothing]

When you define a new domain (VM) on a virtualization host, the domain
definition saves a reference (pathname) to the OVMF_CODE.fd file.
However, the OVMF_VARS.fd file (the variable store *template*) is not
directly referenced; instead, it is *copied* into a separate (private)
file for the domain.

Furthermore, once booted, guest has two flash chips, one that maps the
firmware executable OVMF_CODE.fd read-only, and another pflash chip that
maps its private varstore file read-write.

This makes it possible to upgrade OVMF_CODE.fd and OVMF_VARS.fd (via
package upgrades on the virt host) without messing with varstores that
were earlier instantiated from OVMF_VARS.fd. What's important here is
that the various constants in the new (upgraded) OVMF_CODE.fd file
remain compatible with the *old* OVMF_VARS.fd structure, across package
upgrades.

If that's not possible for introducing e.g. a new feature, then the
package upgrade must not overwrite the OVMF_CODE.fd file in place, but
must provide an additional firmware binary. This firmware binary can
then only be used by freshly defined domains (old domains cannot be
switched over). Old domains can be switched over manually -- and only if
the sysadmin decides it is OK to lose the current variable store
contents. Then the old varstore file for the domain is deleted
(manually), the domain definition is updated, and then a new (logically
empty, pristine) varstore can be created from the *new* OVMF_2_VARS.fd
that matches the *new* OVMF_2_CODE.fd.


During live migration, the "RAM-like" contents of both pflash chips are
migrated (the guest-side view of both chips remains the same, including
the case when the writeable chip happens to be in "programming mode",
i.e., during a UEFI variable write through the Fault Tolerant Write and
Firmware Volume Block(2) protocols).

Once live migration completes, QEMU dumps the full contents of the
writeable chip to the backing file (on the destination host). Going
forward, flash writes from within the guest are reflected to said
host-side file on-line, just like it happened on the source host before
live migration. If the file backing the r/w pflash chip is on NFS
(shared by both src and dst hosts), then this one-time dumping when the
migration completes is superfluous, but it's also harmless.

The interesting question is, what happens when you power down the VM on
the destination host (= post migration), and launch it again there, from
zero. In that case, the firmware executable file comes from the
*destination host* (it was never persistently migrated from the source
host, i.e. never written out on the dst). It simply comes from the OVMF
package that had been installed on the destination host, by the
sysadmin. However, the varstore pflash does reflect the permanent result
of the previous migration. So this is where things can fall apart, if
both firmware binaries (on the src host and on the dst host) don't agree
about the internal structure of the varstore pflash.

Thanks
Laszlo


Re: [edk2-devel] A problem with live migration of UEFI virtual machines

Laszlo Ersek
 

Hi Andrew,

On 02/25/20 19:56, Andrew Fish wrote:
Laszlo,

If I understand this correctly is it not more complicated than just size. It also assumes the memory layout is the same?
Yes.

The legacy BIOS used fixed magic address ranges, but UEFI uses dynamically allocated memory so addresses are not fixed. While the UEFI firmware does try to keep S3 and S4 layouts consistent between boots, I'm not aware of any mechanism to keep the memory map address the same between versions of the firmware?
It's not about RAM, but platform MMIO.

The core of the issue here is that the -D FD_SIZE_4MB and -D FD_SIZE_2MB
build options (or more directly, the different FD_SIZE_IN_KB macro
settings) set a bunch of flash-related build-time constant macros, and
PCDs, differently, in the following files:

- OvmfPkg/OvmfPkg.fdf.inc
- OvmfPkg/VarStore.fdf.inc
- OvmfPkg/OvmfPkg*.dsc

As a result, the OVMF_CODE.fd firmware binary will have different
hard-coded references to the variable store pflash addresses.
(Guest-physical MMIO addresses that point into the pflash range.)

If someone tries to combine an OVMF_CODE.fd firmware binary from e.g.
the 4MB build, with a variable store file that was originally
instantiated from an OVMF_VARS.fd varstore template from the 2MB build,
then the firmware binary's physical address references and various size
references will not match the contents / layout of the varstore pflash
chip, which maps an incompatibly structured varstore file.

For example, "OvmfPkg/VarStore.fdf.inc" describes two incompatible
EFI_FIRMWARE_VOLUME_HEADER structures (which "build" generates for the
OVMF_VARS.fd template) between the 4MB (total size) build, and the
1MB/2MB (total size) build.

The commit message below summarizes the internal layout differences,
from 1MB/2MB -> 4MB:

https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/b24fca05751f

Excerpt (relevant for OVMF_VARS.fd):

Description Compression type Size [KB]
------------------------- ----------------- ----------------------
Non-volatile data storage open-coded binary 128 -> 528 ( +400)
data
Variable store 56 -> 256 ( +200)
Event log 4 -> 4 ( +0)
Working block 4 -> 4 ( +0)
Spare area 64 -> 264 ( +200)

Thanks
Laszlo


On Feb 25, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:

On 02/24/20 16:28, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 05:39:59PM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote:

wuchenye1995 <wuchenye1995@gmail.com> writes:

Hi all,
We found a problem with live migration of UEFI virtual machines
due to size of OVMF.fd changes.
Specifically, the size of OVMF.fd in edk with low version such as
edk-2.0-25 is 2MB while the size of it in higher version such as
edk-2.0-30 is 4MB.
When we migrate a UEFI virtual machine from the host with low
version of edk2 to the host with higher one, qemu component will
report an error in function qemu_ram_resize while
checking size of ovmf_pcbios: Length mismatch: pc.bios: 0x200000 in
!= 0x400000: Invalid argument.
We want to know how to solve this problem after updating the
version of edk2.
You can only migrate a machine that is identical - so instantiating a
empty machine with a different EDK image is bound to cause a problem
because the machines don't match.
I don't believe we are that strict for firmware in general. The
firmware is loaded when QEMU starts, but that only matters for the
original source host QEMU. During migration, the memory content of the
original firmware will be copied during live migration, overwriting
whatever the target QEMU loaded off disk. This works....provided the
memory region is the same size on source & target host, which is where
the problem arises in this case.

If there's a risk that newer firmware will be larger than old firmware
there's only really two options:

- Keep all firmware images forever, each with a unique versioned
filename. This ensures target QEMU will always load the original
smaller firmware

- Add padding to the firmware images. IOW, if the firmware is 2 MB,
add zero-padding to the end of the image to round it upto 4 MB
(whatever you anticipate the largest size wil be in future).

Distros have often taken the latter approach for QEMU firmware in the
past. The main issue is that you have to plan ahead of time and get
this padding right from the very start. You can't add the padding
after the fact on an existing VM.
Following up here *too*, just for completeness.

The query in this thread has been posted three times now (and I have
zero idea why). Each time it generated a different set of responses. For
completes, I'm now going to link the other two threads here (because the
present thread seems to have gotten the most feedback).

To the OP:

- please do *NOT* repost the same question once you get an answer. It
only fragments the discussion and creates confusion. It also doesn't
hurt if you *confirm* that you understood the answer.

- Yet further, if your email address has @gmail.com for domain, but your
msgids contain "tencent", that raises some eyebrows (mine for sure).
You say "we" in the query, but never identify the organization behind
the plural pronoun.

(I've been fuming about the triple-posting of the question for a while
now, but it's only now that, upon seeing how much work Dan has put into
his answer, I've decided that dishing out a bit of netiquette would be
in order.)

* First posting:
- msgid: <tencent_F1295F826E46EDFF3D77812B@qq.com <mailto:tencent_F1295F826E46EDFF3D77812B@qq.com>>
- edk2-devel: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54146
- qemu-devel: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-02/msg02419.html

* my response:
- msgid: <12553.1581366059422195003@groups.io <mailto:12553.1581366059422195003@groups.io>>
- edk2-devel: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54161
- qemu-devel: none, because (as an exception) I used the stupid
groups.io <http://groups.io/> web interface to respond, and so my response
never reached qemu-devel

* Second posting (~4 hours after the first)
- msgid: <tencent_3CD8845EC159F0161725898B@qq.com <mailto:tencent_3CD8845EC159F0161725898B@qq.com>>
- edk2-devel: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54147
- qemu-devel: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-02/msg02415.html

* Dave's response:
- msgid: <20200220154742.GC2882@work-vm>
- edk2-devel: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54681
- qemu-devel: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-02/msg05632.html

* Third posting (next day, present thread) -- cross posted to yet
another list (!), because apparently Dave's feedback and mine had not
been enough:
- msgid: <tencent_BC7FD00363690990994E90F8@qq.com <mailto:tencent_BC7FD00363690990994E90F8@qq.com>>
- edk2-devel: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/54220
- edk2-discuss: https://edk2.groups.io/g/discuss/message/135
- qemu-devel: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-02/msg02735.html

Back on topic: see my response again. The answer is, you can't solve the
problem (specifically with OVMF), and QEMU in fact does you service by
preventing the migration.

Laszlo


661 - 680 of 834