On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 14.10.20 19:31, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > the fwts fails on U-Boot due to testing for a non-existent > > RuntimeServicesSupported variable. > > > > If you look at the UEFI specification 2.8 (Errata B) [1] you will > > discover in the change log: > > > > 2.8 A2049 > > RuntimeServicesSupported EFI variable should be a config table > > February 2020 > > > > Please, read the configuration table to determine if a runtime service > > is available on UEFI 2.8 systems. > > > > On lower UEFI firmware version neither the variable nor the table exists. > > > > Best regards > > > > Heinrich > > > > [1] UEFI Specification Version 2.8 (Errata B) (released June 2020), > > https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI%20Spec%202.8B%20May%202020.pdf > > > > Hello Ard, > > what is your idea how the EFI_RT_PROPERTIES_TABLE shall be exposed to > the efi_test driver? > > Will the EFI runtime wrapper simply return EFI_UNSUPPORTED if the > function is not marked as supported in the table? Or will the > configuration table itself be make available? > The UEFI spec permits that runtime services return EFI_UNSUPPORTED at runtime, but requires that they are marked as such in the EFI_RT_PROPERTIES_TABLE. So assuming that the purpose of efi_test is compliance with the spec, it should only allow EFI_UNSUPPORTED as a return value for each of the tested runtime services if it is omitted from efi.runtime_supported_mask. Since the efi_test ioctl returns both an error code and the actual EFI status code, we should only fail the call on a EFI_UNSUPPORTED status code if the RTPROP mask does not allow that. E.g., --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/test/efi_test.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/test/efi_test.c @@ -265,7 +265,12 @@ static long efi_runtime_set_variable(unsigned long arg) goto out; } - rv = status == EFI_SUCCESS ? 0 : -EINVAL; + if (status == EFI_SUCCESS || + (status == EFI_UNSUPPORTED && + !efi_rt_services_supported(EFI_RT_SUPPORTED_SET_VARIABLE))) + rv = 0; + else + rv = -EINVAL; out: kfree(data); Do you think that could work?
