Re: [edk2-devel] [EXTERNAL] [edk2-stable202105 PATCH] MdeModulePkg/VariableLock: downgrade compatibility warnings to DEBUG_WARN

["Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 05/21/21 22:43, Bret Barkelew via groups.io wrote:
> Reviewed-by: Bret Barkelew bret.barkelew@microsoft.com<mailto:bret.barkelew@microsoft.com>
> 

Thanks!

> I don’t regret making it ERROR at first because now no one can claim to have not been warned when the interface drops,

I agree that this argument works -- on the other hand, we shouldn't
forget that edk2's own BdsDxe and UefiBootManagerLib (and apparently
some other modules) still consume the Variable Lock Protocol. (That's
how I encountered these messages myself.) IOW we can't expect
downstreams to stop consuming the Variable Lock Protocol before edk2
itself does.

> but I agree that lowering to WARN now is prudent.

Thanks again!
Laszlo

> 
> - Bret
> 
> From: Laszlo Ersek<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2021 1:40 PM
> To: edk2-devel-groups-io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>
> Cc: Bret Barkelew<mailto:Bret.Barkelew@microsoft.com>; Hao A Wu<mailto:hao.a.wu@intel.com>; Jian J Wang<mailto:jian.j.wang@intel.com>; Liming Gao<mailto:gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Kinney, Michael D<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Philippe Mathieu-Daudé<mailto:philmd@redhat.com>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [edk2-stable202105 PATCH] MdeModulePkg/VariableLock: downgrade compatibility warnings to DEBUG_WARN
> 
> Commit a18a9bde36d2 ("MdeModulePkg/Variable/RuntimeDxe: Restore Variable
> Lock Protocol behavior", 2020-12-15), for bug 3111, added two such sets of
> debug messages that:
> 
> (a) are relevant for developers,
> 
> (b) yet should not necessarily poke end-users, because no functionality
> suffers in practice.
> 
> Both message sets are in function VariableLockRequestToLock(): the first
> is a generic interface deprecation warning; the second is the
> double-locking situation, which we permit for compatibility (return status
> EFI_SUCCESS).
> 
> Both message sets should be emitted with the DEBUG_WARN mask, not the most
> serious DEBUG_ERROR mask. On some platforms, the serial console carries
> both terminal traffic, and grave (DEBUG_ERROR-only) log messages. On such
> platforms, both message sets may be perceived as a nuisance by end-users,
> as there is nothing they can do, and there's nothing they *should* do --
> in practice, nothing malfunctions.
> 
> (Such a platform is ArmVirtQemu, built with "-D
> DEBUG_PRINT_ERROR_LEVEL=0x80000000".)
> 
> Cc: Bret Barkelew <bret.barkelew@microsoft.com>
> Cc: Hao A Wu <hao.a.wu@intel.com>
> Cc: Jian J Wang <jian.j.wang@intel.com>
> Cc: Liming Gao <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>
> Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Cc: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> Ref: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.tianocore.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D3410&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cbret.barkelew%40microsoft.com%7Ca7ff677adbc34cf62f0608d91c98b5b9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637572264482965812%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=2WuJ06k2ViIR6JnQVRmsGdsnYjmOrPUtGD82thYLe%2FU%3D&amp;reserved=0
> Fixes: a18a9bde36d2ffc12df29cdced1efa1f8f9f2021
> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> ---
>  MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableLockRequestToLock.c | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableLockRequestToLock.c b/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableLockRequestToLock.c
> index 7d87e50efdcd..4e1efef9a7e4 100644
> --- a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableLockRequestToLock.c
> +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/VariableLockRequestToLock.c
> @@ -48,9 +48,9 @@ VariableLockRequestToLock (
>    EFI_STATUS             Status;
>    VARIABLE_POLICY_ENTRY  *NewPolicy;
> 
> -  DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "!!! DEPRECATED INTERFACE !!! %a() will go away soon!\n", __FUNCTION__));
> -  DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "!!! DEPRECATED INTERFACE !!! Please move to use Variable Policy!\n"));
> -  DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "!!! DEPRECATED INTERFACE !!! Variable: %g %s\n", VendorGuid, VariableName));
> +  DEBUG ((DEBUG_WARN, "!!! DEPRECATED INTERFACE !!! %a() will go away soon!\n", __FUNCTION__));
> +  DEBUG ((DEBUG_WARN, "!!! DEPRECATED INTERFACE !!! Please move to use Variable Policy!\n"));
> +  DEBUG ((DEBUG_WARN, "!!! DEPRECATED INTERFACE !!! Variable: %g %s\n", VendorGuid, VariableName));
> 
>    NewPolicy = NULL;
>    Status = CreateBasicVariablePolicy(
> @@ -69,13 +69,13 @@ VariableLockRequestToLock (
>      //
>      // If the error returned is EFI_ALREADY_STARTED, we need to check the
>      // current database for the variable and see whether it's locked. If it's
> -    // locked, we're still fine, but also generate a DEBUG_ERROR message so the
> +    // locked, we're still fine, but also generate a DEBUG_WARN message so the
>      // duplicate lock can be removed.
>      //
>      if (Status == EFI_ALREADY_STARTED) {
>        Status = ValidateSetVariable (VariableName, VendorGuid, 0, 0, NULL);
>        if (Status == EFI_WRITE_PROTECTED) {
> -        DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "  Variable: %g %s is already locked!\n", VendorGuid, VariableName));
> +        DEBUG ((DEBUG_WARN, "  Variable: %g %s is already locked!\n", VendorGuid, VariableName));
>          Status = EFI_SUCCESS;
>        } else {
>          DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "  Variable: %g %s can not be locked!\n", VendorGuid, VariableName));
> --
> 2.19.1.3.g30247aa5d201
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>