Re: [edk2-devel] Edk2 BaseTools Patches.

[michael.johnson@intel.com]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9380 bytes --]

All,

These patches are not required for the stable tag.  They're improvements needed to enable relatively new build options that are not yet widely used.

That said, let me try to clear the air here about what is happening regarding the sources/includes and what changes with these patches.

The INF spec (section 3.9<https://edk2-docs.gitbooks.io/edk-ii-inf-specification/content/v/release/1.27/3_edk_ii_inf_file_format/39_%5bsources%5d_sections.html>) says that all local source files, including .h files, must be included in the sources section.  This means a module is not compliant if it includes a header file from a directory other than a package include directory and fails to list it in its sources section.  We're already generating a hash which is guaranteed to change whenever the module's source changes - without invoking mkdep - by hashing each file from the sources section as well as *all* the contents of every include folder belonging to each package that the module is dependent on.

Every possible 'legally' included header will change the hash, but the hashes of non-compliant modules will not change when their 'illegally' included headers change and we will incorrectly re-use stale cached binaries.  To prevent this, the below patches check for compliance and invalidate the hash of any non-compliant module.  In this way, non-compliance is neither supported nor allowed to poison the cache.

Again, since this only has an effect on builds which have enabled this relatively new feature, I don't expect any production impact if the stable tag doesn't take these patches.  Nobody is using it yet.

-Michael


From: devel@edk2.groups.io [mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io] On Behalf Of Andrew Fish via Groups.Io
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 11:10 AM
To: devel@edk2.groups.io; Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
Cc: Feng, Bob C <bob.c.feng@intel.com>; Rodriguez, Christian <christian.rodriguez@intel.com>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; Shi, Steven <steven.shi@intel.com>; Fan, ZhijuX <zhijux.fan@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Edk2 BaseTools Patches.




On May 30, 2019, at 9:37 AM, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org<mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org>> wrote:

Thanks Bob, Christian,

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 03:06:48PM +0000, Feng, Bob C wrote:

Thanks Christian. I add some short description for the patches.

These 5 patches are all for binary cache feature.

[Patch V4 2/2] BaseTools: Refactor hash tracking after checking for Sources section
[Patch V4 1/2] BaseTools: Add a checking for Sources section in INF file

The above 2 patches is to fix the issue that
The  build tool uses the files list under [sources] section of INF
file as a input to calculate a module's hash value. But in some INF
files, [sources] does not list all the "source" files, missing some
.h files. Path 2/2 use another method to get all source files for a
module and patch 1/2 do a check whether [sources] list all the
"source" files.

I'll be honest - because of the wild variance in whether .h files are
listed in the [sources] section of .inf files, I have always been
unsure as to whether they were just being ignored (and extracted on
the side via mkdep or similar).


Leif,

I'm confused too as you can only really know the set of include files by doing the mkdep?

I don't see the value of hashing the local include files as any include file change in the mkdep path requires the module to be recompiled. It seems to me having one scheme for hashing and anther four building is going to cause a lot of very subtle errors that are really hard to debug. When you have these kind of errors in your build system you teach people they always need to make clean, so they bypass the hashing and dependency checks.

Seems like we may be fighting the makefiles again, but from a 10,000 point of view it seems like the dependency algorithm and the hash need to be tied together. Seems like the makefile already knows if it needs to build it, but I'm not sure if the makefile can run an action if it does not need to build something?

Thanks,

Andrew Fish



If the intent is to speed up build time, would it not be better to
warn the user - so they notice the problem and fix their modules,
rather than adding extra processing time on having the tools work with
broken .inf files?

This does not look like material for edk2-stable201905 to me.


[PATCH v3 1/1] BaseTools:Extend the binary cache to support library cache
This patch is to resolve the problem that
Build tool dose not cache the library binaries now. Whiteout this
patch, there is 25% extra time cost to rebuild the all module
dependency libraries if cache miss happen.

25% is a big number, so I won't argue against this. But I also won't
argue for it - the BZ was raised very late in the cycle.


[PATCH] BaseTools:Update binary cache restore time to current time
This patch is to make the restored binary file have the current time
stamp not the binary file original time stamp.

I can see how the current behaviour could cause problems with some
CI/build systems. If it is properly reviewed and tested, I am OK with
this one going in for edk2-stable201903.


[PATCH V5] BaseTools:Make BaseTools support new rules to generate RAW FFS FILE
This patch is to support the raw ffs file rule. Now build tool does
not correctly handle this case:

[Rule.Common.USER_DEFINED.MicroCode]
 FILE RAW = $(NAMED_GUID) {
                $(INF_OUTPUT)/$(MODULE_NAME).bin
 }

This looks like a new feature - not something that should bypass the
freeze period for edk2-stable201905.
Can you explain why this is needed in the stable tag as opposed to
being available from master the day after the tag is made?

Best Regards,

Leif




Thanks,
Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Rodriguez, Christian
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 10:26 PM
To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org<mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org>>; Feng, Bob C <bob.c.feng@intel.com<mailto:bob.c.feng@intel.com>>
Cc: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com<mailto:afish@apple.com>>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>; Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com<mailto:liming.gao@intel.com>>; Shi, Steven <steven.shi@intel.com<mailto:steven.shi@intel.com>>; Fan, ZhijuX <zhijux.fan@intel.com<mailto:zhijux.fan@intel.com>>
Subject: RE: Edk2 BaseTools Patches.

Hey Leif,

I thought I'd help Bob and gather those BZs for each thread:

[Patch V4 1/2] BaseTools: Add a checking for Sources section in INF file [Patch V4 2/2] BaseTools: Refactor hash tracking after checking for Sources section
BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1804

[PATCH v3 1/1] BaseTools:Extend the binary cache to support library cache
BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1797

[PATCH V5] BaseTools:Make BaseTools support new rules to generate RAW FFS FILE
BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1765

[PATCH] BaseTools:Update binary cache restore time to current time
BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742

Thanks,
Christian


-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 2:28 AM
To: Feng, Bob C <bob.c.feng@intel.com<mailto:bob.c.feng@intel.com>>
Cc: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com<mailto:afish@apple.com>>; Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com<mailto:lersek@redhat.com>>;
Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com<mailto:michael.d.kinney@intel.com>>; devel@edk2.groups.io<mailto:devel@edk2.groups.io>;
Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com<mailto:liming.gao@intel.com>>; Shi, Steven <steven.shi@intel.com<mailto:steven.shi@intel.com>>;
Rodriguez, Christian <christian.rodriguez@intel.com<mailto:christian.rodriguez@intel.com>>; Fan, ZhijuX
<zhijux.fan@intel.com<mailto:zhijux.fan@intel.com>>
Subject: Re: Edk2 BaseTools Patches.

Hi Bob,

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 06:39:59AM +0000, Feng, Bob C wrote:

Hi,

Currently, we have 5 Basetools patches which are ready to push. Since
we are in the soft-freeze phase, I'd like to ask for your opinions if
those patches can be pushed to edk2 master.

To save me the time of reading through all the threads and getting to
grips with all the code, could you summarise the problem these solve
and the impact of not including these?

Is there a BZ?

Regards,

Leif



These 5 patches are to fix the issues for the build cache feature.

[Patch V4 2/2] BaseTools: Refactor hash tracking after checking for
Sources section
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/31835556#41642

[Patch V4 1/2] BaseTools: Add a checking for Sources section in INF
file
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/31835555#41641

[PATCH v3 1/1] BaseTools:Extend the binary cache to support library
cache
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/31843505#41655

[PATCH V5] BaseTools:Make BaseTools support new rules to generate RAW
FFS FILE
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/31830807#41571

[PATCH] BaseTools:Update binary cache restore time to current time
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/topic/31819590#41468


Thanks,
Bob





[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 20919 bytes --]