From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: intel.com, ip: 192.55.52.151, mailfrom: michael.d.kinney@intel.com) Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by groups.io with SMTP; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 22:24:36 -0700 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Aug 2019 22:24:35 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,440,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="174794461" Received: from orsmsx102.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.225.129]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2019 22:24:35 -0700 Received: from orsmsx156.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.22) by ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.225.129) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 22:24:34 -0700 Received: from orsmsx113.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.9.198]) by ORSMSX156.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.8.12]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 22:24:34 -0700 From: "Michael D Kinney" To: "Wu, Hao A" , Leif Lindholm , Laszlo Ersek , "Kinney, Michael D" CC: "devel@edk2.groups.io" , Andrew Fish , Baptiste Gerondeau , "Wang, Jian J" , "Feng, Bob C" , "Gao, Liming" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg: fix !x86 builds (more) Thread-Topic: [PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg: fix !x86 builds (more) Thread-Index: AQHVXUGQzn/b+Pua30enHm0Qvbw+e6cQBqhw Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 05:24:34 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20190827124328.9034-1-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <6ce1988a-bd79-893e-5d8d-724b98329ab9@redhat.com> <20190827205926.GG29255@bivouac.eciton.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.2.0.6 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.138] MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: michael.d.kinney@intel.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hao Wu, Please provide a patch to BaseTools to restore the previous behavior. We need that to review the complexity of the change to determine what to do. Without that information today, the release date=20 of this stable tag is at risk. Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Wu, Hao A > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 6:40 PM > To: Leif Lindholm ; Laszlo > Ersek ; Kinney, Michael D > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; Andrew Fish ; > Baptiste Gerondeau ; Wang, > Jian J ; Feng, Bob C > ; Gao, Liming > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg: fix !x86 builds > (more) >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 4:59 AM > > To: Laszlo Ersek > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; Andrew Fish; Kinney, Michael > D; Baptiste > > Gerondeau; Wang, Jian J; Wu, Hao A; Feng, Bob C; Gao, > Liming > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] MdeModulePkg: fix !x86 builds > (more) > > > > +Bob, Liming, > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 09:26:05PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek > wrote: > > > Hi Leif, > > > > > > On 08/27/19 14:43, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > > Commit 4a1f6b85c184 > > > > ("MdeModulePkg: add LockBoxNullLib for !IA32/X64 in > .dsc") added > > > > an ARM/AARCH64 resolution for LockBoxLib. However, > this failed to > > > > address the overrides provided for PEIM, > DXE_DRIVER, > > > > DXE_RUNTIME_DRIVER, DXE_SMM_DRIVER and UEFI_DRIVER, > so any > > modules > > > > of those classes still failed to build. > > > > > > > > Break these out properly into their own > LibraryClasses sections. > > > > > > > > Resolves BZ: > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D2134 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm > > > > > Reported-by: Baptiste Gerondeau > > > > > Cc: Jian J Wang > > > > Cc: Hao A Wu > > > > --- > > > > > > > > I don't understand how the above would appear to > work back when I > > > > submitted the previous patch but not work now, but > I haven't dug > > > > into it deeper. Including the x86-specific > LockBoxLib in the > > > > .common section is however clearly not correct. > > > > > > I agree with you that the present situation is not > correct. > > > > > > According to: > > > > > > https://edk2-docs.gitbooks.io/edk-ii-dsc- > > > specification/2_dsc_overview/26_[libraryclasses]_section_ > processing.ht > > ml > > > > > > the library class resolutions take effect in the > following order > > > (entries near the top have higher priority): > > > > > > > 1. associated with the INF file in > the > > > > [Components] > > section > > > > 2. [LibraryClasses.$(Arch).$(MODULE_TYPE), > > LibraryClasses.$(Arch).$(MODULE_TYPE)] > > > > 3. [LibraryClasses.$(Arch).$(MODULE_TYPE)] > > > > 4. [LibraryClasses.common.$(MODULE_TYPE)] > > > > 5. [LibraryClasses.$(Arch)] > > > > 6. [LibraryClasses.common] or [LibraryClasses] > > > > > > (Side comment 1: levels #2 and #3 look very similar; > I think the > > > difference is that #2 is supposed to be a multi-arch > and/or > > > multi-module-type section, while #3 is a single-arch > and > > > single-module-type section.) > > > > > > Commit 4a1f6b85c184 ("MdeModulePkg: add > LockBoxNullLib for !IA32/X64 > > in > > > .dsc", 2019-03-27) provided a LockBoxLib resolution > at level #5: > > > > Yes. > > > > > > [LibraryClasses.ARM, LibraryClasses.AARCH64] > > > > > > However, the other LockBoxLib resolutions are at > level #4: > > > > > > > [LibraryClasses.common.PEIM] > > > > [LibraryClasses.common.DXE_DRIVER] > > > > [LibraryClasses.common.DXE_RUNTIME_DRIVER] > > > > [LibraryClasses.common.DXE_SMM_DRIVER] > > > > [LibraryClasses.common.UEFI_DRIVER] > > > > > > So the latter taking priority is actually specified > behavior. > > > > Hmm. That's not great. > > Anyway, I stopped being lazy and did a bisect. > > > > The culprit is > > e8449e1d8e3b ("BaseTools: Decouple AutoGen Objects"), > marked as > > resolving > https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1875. > > > > This also affects SignedCapsulePkg/SignedCapsulePkg.dsc > (although once > > addressed, AARCH64 also needs a NULL entry added for > > CompilerIntrinsicsLib. > > > > > (Side comment 2: EBC is in the same boat, from commit > cbcccd2c9d93 > > > ("Update Code to pass EBC compiler", 2013-05-13): > > > > > > > [LibraryClasses.EBC] > > > > > > > > > LockBoxLib|MdeModulePkg/Library/LockBoxNullLib/LockBoxNul > lLib.inf > > > ) > > > > > > As to why this breakage was not exposed right at > commit 4a1f6b85c184 > > > -- I have no idea. Perhaps it was hidden by a > BaseTools issue that > > > has been fixed meanwhile. > > > > Yes. > > But it is also a fundamental change in tool behaviour > introduced on 9 > > August. I am really uncomfortable about this making it > into the > > release this week - but I also believe this is the > foundation for the > > multiprocess autogen. > > > > Since you have very helpfully analyzed *what* changed > ... would the > > better "fix" for 2019.08 be to intentionally break the > new code to > > conform to the old behaviour - and then revert that > patch after the > > tag? > > > > If we do that, this patch could then wait and indeed be > merged as part > > of the same set. > > > > > On 08/27/19 14:43, Leif Lindholm wrote: > > > > I think a fix for this issue needs to go into > 2019.08, > > > > > > I agree the problem should be fixed in 2019.08 -- > taking your word > > > that commit 4a1f6b85c184 *appeared* to fix the > MdeModulePkg.dsc > > > build for ARM/AARCH64, we now have a regression since > that commit > > > (dated 2019-03-27). > > > > > > > but if someone has a prettier suggestion, I am not > wedded to this one. > > > > > > I think this is good enough. The lib class > resolutions are raised to > > > level #2, but they will no longer match ARM / > AARCH64, so your > > > level#5 addition from commit 4a1f6b85c184 will take > effect. > > > > > > > > > > > MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dsc | 16 +++++++++++++-- > - > > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dsc > > b/MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dsc > > > > index 4320839abfb5..15ba96cecbed 100644 > > > > --- a/MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dsc > > > > +++ b/MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dsc > > > > @@ -109,6 +109,8 @@ [LibraryClasses.common.PEIM] > > > > HobLib|MdePkg/Library/PeiHobLib/PeiHobLib.inf > > > > > > > MemoryAllocationLib|MdePkg/Library/PeiMemoryAllocationLib > /PeiMemory > > AllocationLib.inf > > > > > > > ExtractGuidedSectionLib|MdePkg/Library/PeiExtractGuidedSe > ctionLib/PeiE > > ExtractGuidedSectionLib|x > > tractGuidedSectionLib.inf > > > > + > > > > +[LibraryClasses.IA32.PEIM,LibraryClasses.X64.PEIM] > > > > > > > LockBoxLib|MdeModulePkg/Library/SmmLockBoxLib/SmmLockBoxP > eiLib.inf > > > > > > (1) I suggest replacing "," with ", ". (That's more > consistent with > > > preexistent section headers in the DSC file.) Applies > to the other > > > new section headers too. > > > > Yes, fair point. > > > > > > > > > > [LibraryClasses.common.DXE_CORE] > > > > @@ -118,18 +120,22 @@ > [LibraryClasses.common.DXE_CORE] > > > > > > > > [LibraryClasses.common.DXE_DRIVER] > > > > HobLib|MdePkg/Library/DxeHobLib/DxeHobLib.inf > > > > - > > > LockBoxLib|MdeModulePkg/Library/SmmLockBoxLib/SmmLockBoxD > xeLib.in > > f > > > > > > > MemoryAllocationLib|MdePkg/Library/UefiMemoryAllocationLi > b/UefiMemo > > ryAllocationLib.inf > > > > > > > ExtractGuidedSectionLib|MdePkg/Library/DxeExtractGuidedSe > ctionLib/DxeE > > xtractGuidedSectionLib.inf > > > > > > > CapsuleLib|MdeModulePkg/Library/DxeCapsuleLibFmp/DxeCapsu > leLib.inf > > > > > > > > > +[LibraryClasses.IA32.DXE_DRIVER,LibraryClasses.X64.DXE_D > RIVER] > > > > + > > > LockBoxLib|MdeModulePkg/Library/SmmLockBoxLib/SmmLockBoxD > xeLib.in > > f > > > > + > > > > [LibraryClasses.common.DXE_RUNTIME_DRIVER] > > > > HobLib|MdePkg/Library/DxeHobLib/DxeHobLib.inf > > > > > > > MemoryAllocationLib|MdePkg/Library/UefiMemoryAllocationLi > b/UefiMemo > > ryAllocationLib.inf > > > > > > > DebugLib|MdePkg/Library/UefiDebugLibConOut/UefiDebugLibCo > nOut.inf > > > > - > > > LockBoxLib|MdeModulePkg/Library/SmmLockBoxLib/SmmLockBoxD > xeLib.in > > f > > > > > > > CapsuleLib|MdeModulePkg/Library/DxeCapsuleLibFmp/DxeRunti > meCapsule > > Lib.inf > > > > > > > > > > > +[LibraryClasses.IA32.DXE_RUNTIME_DRIVER,LibraryClasses.X > 64.DXE_RUNTI > > ME_DRIVER] > > > > + > > > LockBoxLib|MdeModulePkg/Library/SmmLockBoxLib/SmmLockBoxD > xeLib.in > > f > > > > + > > > > [LibraryClasses.common.SMM_CORE] > > > > HobLib|MdePkg/Library/DxeHobLib/DxeHobLib.inf > > > > > > > MemoryAllocationLib|MdeModulePkg/Library/PiSmmCoreMemoryA > llocatio > > nLib/PiSmmCoreMemoryAllocationLib.inf > > > > @@ -143,13 +149,17 @@ > [LibraryClasses.common.DXE_SMM_DRIVER] > > > > > > > MemoryAllocationLib|MdePkg/Library/SmmMemoryAllocationLib > /SmmMe > > moryAllocationLib.inf > > > > > > > MmServicesTableLib|MdePkg/Library/MmServicesTableLib/MmSe > rvicesTabl > > eLib.inf > > > > > > > SmmServicesTableLib|MdePkg/Library/SmmServicesTableLib/Sm > mServicesT > > ableLib.inf > > > > + SmmMemLib|MdePkg/Library/SmmMemLib/SmmMemLib.inf > > > > + > > > > > > > +[LibraryClasses.IA32.DXE_SMM_DRIVER,LibraryClasses.X64.D > XE_SMM_DRI > > VER] > > > > > > > LockBoxLib|MdeModulePkg/Library/SmmLockBoxLib/SmmLockBoxS > mmLib.i > > nf > > > > - SmmMemLib|MdePkg/Library/SmmMemLib/SmmMemLib.inf > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if this is really necessary. I would assume > all the > > > DXE_SMM_DRIVER modules are listed under > > > > > > [Components.IA32, Components.X64] > > > > > > already. But, this hunk certainly doesn't hurt. > > > > Well, this fixes the current issue. I completely agree > the file could > > benefit from some overall restructuring. > > > > > > [LibraryClasses.common.UEFI_DRIVER] > > > > HobLib|MdePkg/Library/DxeHobLib/DxeHobLib.inf > > > > > > > MemoryAllocationLib|MdePkg/Library/UefiMemoryAllocationLi > b/UefiMemo > > ryAllocationLib.inf > > > > > > > DebugLib|MdePkg/Library/UefiDebugLibConOut/UefiDebugLibCo > nOut.inf > > > > + > > > > > +[LibraryClasses.IA32.UEFI_DRIVER,LibraryClasses.X64.UEFI > _DRIVER] > > > > > > > LockBoxLib|MdeModulePkg/Library/SmmLockBoxLib/SmmLockBoxD > xeLib.in > > f > > > > > > > > [LibraryClasses.common.UEFI_APPLICATION] > > > > > > > > > > With (1) fixed (feel free to correct that just before > pushing): > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek > > > > Thanks! > > > > > Do wait for maintainer review, of course. > > > > Of course. >=20 >=20 > Per my understanding to the analysis from Leif, Laszlo > and Mike, the patch will depend on the precedence of the > below rules: >=20 > * [LibraryClasses.common.$(MODULE_TYPE)] > * [LibraryClasses.$(Arch)] >=20 > So for now, we should wait for the final call on the > above open, right? >=20 > Best Regards, > Hao Wu >=20 >=20 > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Leif