|
Re: [RFC] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address critical bug BZ3111)
Makes sense. Let's go with the branch.
Mike: yes, that was what I was suggesting wrt cherry-picking and pushing.
Best Regards,
Leif
Makes sense. Let's go with the branch.
Mike: yes, that was what I was suggesting wrt cherry-picking and pushing.
Best Regards,
Leif
|
By
Leif Lindholm
·
#454
·
|
|
Re: [RFC] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address critical bug BZ3111)
FWIW, we tried both branches and tags in Mu, and have gotten more mileage out of branches. We will still do tags periodically (to establish a point at which all the sub repos were put through a full
FWIW, we tried both branches and tags in Mu, and have gotten more mileage out of branches. We will still do tags periodically (to establish a point at which all the sub repos were put through a full
|
By
Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@...>
·
#453
·
|
|
Re: [RFC] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address critical bug BZ3111)
Hi Leif,
I think you are suggesting that a local branch could be created from edk2-stable202011 and the
2 commits cherry-picked onto that local branch and then create a tag on that local branch
Hi Leif,
I think you are suggesting that a local branch could be created from edk2-stable202011 and the
2 commits cherry-picked onto that local branch and then create a tag on that local branch
|
By
Michael D Kinney
·
#452
·
|
|
Re: [RFC] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address critical bug BZ3111)
Hi Mike,
This looks fine to me.
I will add a potential tweak that I won't strongly advocate for, but
think should be considered:
We don't technically need a branch for this; a tag could be
Hi Mike,
This looks fine to me.
I will add a potential tweak that I won't strongly advocate for, but
think should be considered:
We don't technically need a branch for this; a tag could be
|
By
Leif Lindholm
·
#451
·
|
|
[RFC] Create supported branch from edk2-stable* tag (Required to address critical bug BZ3111)
Hello,
The following bug has been fixed on edk2/master
https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3111
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/1226
This bug is also considered a critical
Hello,
The following bug has been fixed on edk2/master
https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3111
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/1226
This bug is also considered a critical
|
By
Michael D Kinney
·
#450
·
|
|
Re: The code that creates the TCG Event Log needs an audit
Besides document, we filed below EDKII Bugzilla during code revisit:
3087 EDK2 Code unassigned@... UNCO --- TCG: EFI_EXIT_BOOT_SERVICES_INVOCATION is not recorded when ExitBootService
Besides document, we filed below EDKII Bugzilla during code revisit:
3087 EDK2 Code unassigned@... UNCO --- TCG: EFI_EXIT_BOOT_SERVICES_INVOCATION is not recorded when ExitBootService
|
By
Yao, Jiewen
·
#449
·
|
|
Re: The code that creates the TCG Event Log needs an audit
Responsive to Jiewen's message below one can find "Understanding the Trusted Boot Chain Implementation" at the following links:
HTML:
Responsive to Jiewen's message below one can find "Understanding the Trusted Boot Chain Implementation" at the following links:
HTML:
|
By
Zimmer, Vincent
·
#448
·
|
|
RFC: Adding support for ARM (RNDR etc.) to RngDxe
Currently, RngDxe in SecurityPkg only supports Intel, with RdRand support.
This RFC is to start a discussion about adding support for ARM.
I have a Git branch with support for the optional ARMv8.5
Currently, RngDxe in SecurityPkg only supports Intel, with RdRand support.
This RFC is to start a discussion about adding support for ARM.
I have a Git branch with support for the optional ARMv8.5
|
By
Rebecca Cran <rebecca@...>
·
#447
·
|
|
Re: [edk2-devel] RFC: Adding support for ARM (RNDR etc.) to RngDxe
Maybe you can upload the content to https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/files/Designs, where we hold the design review ppt, etc.
I assume we want to discuss below two APIs implementation, right?
1)
Maybe you can upload the content to https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/files/Designs, where we hold the design review ppt, etc.
I assume we want to discuss below two APIs implementation, right?
1)
|
By
Yao, Jiewen
·
#446
·
|
|
Re: [edk2-devel] RFC: Adding support for ARM (RNDR etc.) to RngDxe
Hi Sami,
JPGs work, but preferably published in a location where they're
unlikely to be deleted, and posted as URLs.
https://app.diagrams.net/ doesn't require a licensed application to
edit, and can
Hi Sami,
JPGs work, but preferably published in a location where they're
unlikely to be deleted, and posted as URLs.
https://app.diagrams.net/ doesn't require a licensed application to
edit, and can
|
By
Leif Lindholm
·
#445
·
|
|
Re: [edk2-devel] RFC: Adding support for ARM (RNDR etc.) to RngDxe
Hi All,
I am working on the TRNG FW API interface and will share more details for the discussion soon.
We had some thoughts about streamlining the RngDxe implementations and would like to share some
Hi All,
I am working on the TRNG FW API interface and will share more details for the discussion soon.
We had some thoughts about streamlining the RngDxe implementations and would like to share some
|
By
Sami Mujawar <sami.mujawar@...>
·
#444
·
|
|
Re: [edk2-devel] RFC: Adding support for ARM (RNDR etc.) to RngDxe
There is also the TRNG FW API, which is an architected SMC firmware interface:
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0098/latest/
________________________________
Sent: Tuesday, December 8,
There is also the TRNG FW API, which is an architected SMC firmware interface:
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0098/latest/
________________________________
Sent: Tuesday, December 8,
|
By
Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud
·
#443
·
|
|
Re: The code that creates the TCG Event Log needs an audit
Good suggestion. Thanks Dick.
Vincent and I have plan to refresh our TPM2 whitepaper recently.
We will definitely take it into consideration, to add more detail on describing the EDK2 intent and
Good suggestion. Thanks Dick.
Vincent and I have plan to refresh our TPM2 whitepaper recently.
We will definitely take it into consideration, to add more detail on describing the EDK2 intent and
|
By
Yao, Jiewen
·
#442
·
|
|
The code that creates the TCG Event Log needs an audit
[RFC] The code that creates the TCG Event Log needs an audit
Problem Statement
The TCG support code included in the EDK2 tree is in place to enable the two major features provided by a platform TPM.
[RFC] The code that creates the TCG Event Log needs an audit
Problem Statement
The TCG support code included in the EDK2 tree is in place to enable the two major features provided by a platform TPM.
|
By
Dick Wilkins
·
#441
·
|
|
Re: [RFC] Request for new git repository for EdkRepo
Hi Everyone,
This RFC has been sitting for a while and it seems like we have reached a conclusion. I would like to make a request to the TianoCore stewards to create 2 new git repositories in the
Hi Everyone,
This RFC has been sitting for a while and it seems like we have reached a conclusion. I would like to make a request to the TianoCore stewards to create 2 new git repositories in the
|
By
Nate DeSimone
·
#440
·
|
|
[staging/branch] [RFC] Add TDVF Branch to edk2-staging
In order to support Intel Trust Domain Extensions (TDX) (https://software.intel.com/content/www/us/en/develop/articles/intel-trust-domain-extensions.html), we need a new Trust Domain Virtual Firmware
In order to support Intel Trust Domain Extensions (TDX) (https://software.intel.com/content/www/us/en/develop/articles/intel-trust-domain-extensions.html), we need a new Trust Domain Virtual Firmware
|
By
Yao, Jiewen
·
#439
·
|
|
Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] Support Both MM Traditional and Standalone Drivers with One MM Core
By
Siyuan, Fu <siyuan.fu@...>
·
#438
·
|
|
Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] Support Both MM Traditional and Standalone Drivers with One MM Core
Could you explain more about the gap that needs to be bridged here? I suppose the desire is to be able to reuse existing DXE_SMM_DRIVER modules, and deploy them unmodified in a standalone MM
Could you explain more about the gap that needs to be bridged here? I suppose the desire is to be able to reuse existing DXE_SMM_DRIVER modules, and deploy them unmodified in a standalone MM
|
By
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...>
·
#437
·
|
|
Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] Support Both MM Traditional and Standalone Drivers with One MM Core
Hi, Sami
I know the traditional MM is planned to be deprecated but the reality is that there
are many existing traditional MM platforms/drivers and the migration has to happen
step-by-step. It may
Hi, Sami
I know the traditional MM is planned to be deprecated but the reality is that there
are many existing traditional MM platforms/drivers and the migration has to happen
step-by-step. It may
|
By
Siyuan, Fu <siyuan.fu@...>
·
#436
·
|
|
Re: [edk2-devel] [RFC] Support Both MM Traditional and Standalone Drivers with One MM Core
Hi Siyuan,
I can see the following points:
- current code organisation is such that the traditional MM and standalone MM are clearly separated.
- traditional MM is planned to be deprecated.
- some
Hi Siyuan,
I can see the following points:
- current code organisation is such that the traditional MM and standalone MM are clearly separated.
- traditional MM is planned to be deprecated.
- some
|
By
Sami Mujawar <sami.mujawar@...>
·
#435
·
|