Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/10] bundle edk2 platform firmware with QEMU

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 08:30:02PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 03/12/19 16:59, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 04:40:45PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >> On 03/11/19 11:35, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 12:21:55PM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> >>>> On 3/10/19 4:56 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 01:48:16AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> >>>>>> Repo:   https://github.com/lersek/qemu.git
> >>>>>> Branch: edk2_build
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This series advances the roms/edk2 submodule to the "edk2-stable201903"
> >>>>>> release, and builds and captures platform firmware binaries from that
> >>>>>> release. At this point they are meant to be used by both end-users and
> >>>>>> by Igor's ACPI unit tests in qtest ("make check").
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Previous discussion:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   [Qemu-devel] bundling edk2 platform firmware images with QEMU
> >>>>>>   http://mid.mail-archive.com/address@hidden
> >>>>>>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-03/msg02601.html
> >>>>
> >>>> There David raised a concern about "[adding] ~206 MB of binaries to the
> >>>> pc-bios directory". I'm also worried.
> >>>>
> >>>> GitHub kindly suggest to use git-lfs. It is an extra dependency I'd
> >>>> rather strongly avoid (because we support a wide range of host OS, each
> >>>> using a wide types of filesystems).
> >>>>
> >>>> What about storing those binaries on a file server (http/ftp) altogether
> >>>> with a file containing its hashed digest (SHA1/SHA256)? Then we already
> >>>> have all the required tools to fetch and verify those blob roms with the
> >>>> build system.
> >>>> Or we could store the hashes in the QEMU repository too.
> >>>
> >>> A simple approach would simply be to 'xz' compress all the edk*.fd
> >>> files but still store them in git. They're already opaque binary
> >>> files, so replacing one binary format with another binary format
> >>> is no big deal IMHO
> >>>
> >>> $ ls -alsh edk2-*
> >>> 1.1M -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 1.1M Mar 11 10:29 
> >>> edk2-aarch64-code.fd.xz
> >>> 2.1M -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange  64M Mar 11 10:29 edk2-arm-code.fd
> >>> 772K -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange  64M Mar 11 10:29 edk2-arm-vars.fd
> >>> 3.5M -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 3.5M Mar 11 10:29 edk2-i386-code.fd
> >>> 3.5M -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 3.5M Mar 11 10:29 
> >>> edk2-i386-secure-code.fd
> >>> 528K -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 528K Mar 11 10:29 edk2-i386-vars.fd
> >>>  12K -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange  11K Mar 11 10:29 edk2-licenses.txt
> >>> 3.5M -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 3.5M Mar 11 10:29 edk2-x86_64-code.fd
> >>> 3.5M -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 3.5M Mar 11 10:29 
> >>> edk2-x86_64-secure-code.fd
> >>>
> >>> This gives a 50% disk space saving over the sparse size:
> >>>
> >>> $ ls -alsh edk2-*
> >>> 1.1M -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 1.1M Mar 11 10:29 
> >>> edk2-aarch64-code.fd.xz
> >>> 1.1M -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 1.1M Mar 11 10:29 edk2-arm-code.fd.xz
> >>>  12K -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 9.8K Mar 11 10:29 edk2-arm-vars.fd.xz
> >>> 1.6M -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 1.6M Mar 11 10:29 
> >>> edk2-i386-code.fd.xz
> >>> 1.8M -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 1.8M Mar 11 10:29 
> >>> edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.xz
> >>> 4.0K -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange  320 Mar 11 10:29 
> >>> edk2-i386-vars.fd.xz
> >>>  12K -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange  11K Mar 11 10:29 edk2-licenses.txt
> >>> 1.6M -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 1.6M Mar 11 10:29 
> >>> edk2-x86_64-code.fd.xz
> >>> 1.9M -rw-rw-r--. 1 berrange berrange 1.9M Mar 11 10:29 
> >>> edk2-x86_64-secure-code.fd.xz
> >>>
> >>> So about 9 MB compressed, instead of 20MB for the uncompressed sparse
> >>> files, which is on a par with the existing ROM sizes.
> >>>
> >>> We would then need a "make" rule that runs  unxz to "build" the firmware
> >>> files. Wouldn't need to be more complicated that this:
> >>>
> >>>    edk2-%.fd: edk2-%.fd.xz
> >>>          unzx -c $< > $@
> >>>
> >>>    CLEANFILES += $(wildcard edk2*.fd)
> >>
> >> The problem with this idea is that such *.xz files are not directly
> >> consumeable by Igor's ACPI regression test cases in qtest. The above
> >> approach is suitable for "make install" only, not for "make check", AIUI.
> > 
> > I was suggesting that this rule to uncompress is wired into the
> > default "make" target actually.
> 
> Ah, I see.
> 
> We might have to mark these "side artifacts" as .SECONDARY then, lest
> make remove them in the end.
> 
> https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Chained-Rules
> 
> Not entirely sure yet, I'd have to see in practice.
> 
> > Probably by just marking them
> > as generated files, so they are always built. This will make
> > it work for tests, as well as developers running from the source
> > tree.
> 
> I'm quite lost in the top level Makefile -- this idea is more complex
> than just extending INSTALL_BLOBS / BLOBS.
> 
> What target should I make dependent on the uncompressed fd files so that
> "make" process them for both "make" (which is "make all" I guess) and
> "make check"?

I think it is sufficient to edit the main Makefile and add the list
of UEFI firmwares to the GENERATED_FILES  variable. Anything listed
in $GENERATED_FILES is generated before any of the other make rules
run.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|