Issue:
when file open is failed, assert was seen due to freeing 0 size page

Reason:
DataSize is remain zero if error is reported in ShellOpenFileByName

Fix:
Update DataSize as soon as FileSize is available

Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
Signed-off-by: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
Signed-off-by: Vabhav <vabhav.sharma@nxp.com>
---
 ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
index fbde3bf..6425fc5 100755
--- a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
+++ b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
@@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
       );
       goto NextHandle;
     }
+    DataSize = FileSize;
 
     Status = DownloadFile (Mtftp4, RemoteFilePath, AsciiRemoteFilePath, FileSize, BlockSize, &Data);
     if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
@@ -539,7 +540,6 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
       goto NextHandle;
     }
 
-    DataSize = FileSize;
     Status = ShellWriteFile (FileHandle, &FileSize, Data);
     if (!EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
       ShellStatus = SHELL_SUCCESS;
-- 
1.9.1

_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 07:56:32PM +0530, Vabhav wrote:
> Issue:
> when file open is failed, assert was seen due to freeing 0 size page
> 
> Reason:
> DataSize is remain zero if error is reported in ShellOpenFileByName
> 
> Fix:
> Update DataSize as soon as FileSize is available
> 
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> Signed-off-by: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vabhav <vabhav.sharma@nxp.com>
> ---
>  ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> index fbde3bf..6425fc5 100755
> --- a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> +++ b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> @@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
>        );
>        goto NextHandle;

Wow, a goto in a foor loop in a 320-line function.
What could possibly go wrong?

>      }
> +    DataSize = FileSize;
>  
>      Status = DownloadFile (Mtftp4, RemoteFilePath, AsciiRemoteFilePath, FileSize, BlockSize, &Data);
>      if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> @@ -539,7 +540,6 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
>        goto NextHandle;
>      }
>  
> -    DataSize = FileSize;
>      Status = ShellWriteFile (FileHandle, &FileSize, Data);
>      if (!EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
>        ShellStatus = SHELL_SUCCESS;
> -- 
> 1.9.1

So, a wider question:
This shell command was introduced in the heyday of "let's reimplement
U-Boot in the EDK2 tree". Mainly, from my impression, it seems to be
used in order that people don't need to learn how boot managers and
device paths work.
Am I being too harsh?
Are there practical uses for this?
Or should we delete it from the tree?

If the code is to be kept, I think (from a quick glance) that I would
also like to see *Data = NULL in the error path of DownloadFile().

/
    Leif
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 11:25 PM
> To: Vabhav Sharma <vabhav.sharma@nxp.com>
> Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; ruiyu.ni@intel.com; jaben.carsey@intel.com;
> ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; siyuan.fu@intel.com; ting.ye@intel.com; Udit
> Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> 
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 07:56:32PM +0530, Vabhav wrote:
> > Issue:
> > when file open is failed, assert was seen due to freeing 0 size page
> >
> > Reason:
> > DataSize is remain zero if error is reported in ShellOpenFileByName
> >
> > Fix:
> > Update DataSize as soon as FileSize is available
> >
> > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1
> > Signed-off-by: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Vabhav <vabhav.sharma@nxp.com>
> > ---
> >  ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > index fbde3bf..6425fc5 100755
> > --- a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > +++ b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > @@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> >        );
> >        goto NextHandle;
> 
> Wow, a goto in a foor loop in a 320-line function.
> What could possibly go wrong?

Instead of being on some volume, if you are on Shell. 
Then file open will fail. 
 
> >      }
> > +    DataSize = FileSize;
> >
> >      Status = DownloadFile (Mtftp4, RemoteFilePath, AsciiRemoteFilePath,
> FileSize, BlockSize, &Data);
> >      if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > @@ -539,7 +540,6 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> >        goto NextHandle;
> >      }
> >
> > -    DataSize = FileSize;
> >      Status = ShellWriteFile (FileHandle, &FileSize, Data);
> >      if (!EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> >        ShellStatus = SHELL_SUCCESS;
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> 
> So, a wider question:
> This shell command was introduced in the heyday of "let's reimplement U-Boot
> in the EDK2 tree". Mainly, from my impression, it seems to be used in order that
> people don't need to learn how boot managers and device paths work.

When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful. 

> Am I being too harsh?
> Are there practical uses for this?

For doing some sort of unit testing of given interface. I found this useful.
During development, this is useful to transfer generic file to development board. 

> Or should we delete it from the tree?
 
 
> If the code is to be kept, I think (from a quick glance) that I would also like to see
> *Data = NULL in the error path of DownloadFile().
> 
> /
>     Leif
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:15:49AM +0000, Udit Kumar wrote:
> > > diff --git a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > index fbde3bf..6425fc5 100755
> > > --- a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > +++ b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > @@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > >        );
> > >        goto NextHandle;
> > 
> > Wow, a goto in a foor loop in a 320-line function.
> > What could possibly go wrong?
> 
> Instead of being on some volume, if you are on Shell. 
> Then file open will fail. 

Sure. The above was a snarky comment on the state of the existing
code.

> > >      }
> > > +    DataSize = FileSize;
> > >
> > >      Status = DownloadFile (Mtftp4, RemoteFilePath, AsciiRemoteFilePath,
> > FileSize, BlockSize, &Data);
> > >      if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > @@ -539,7 +540,6 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > >        goto NextHandle;
> > >      }
> > >
> > > -    DataSize = FileSize;
> > >      Status = ShellWriteFile (FileHandle, &FileSize, Data);
> > >      if (!EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > >        ShellStatus = SHELL_SUCCESS;
> > > --
> > > 1.9.1
> > 
> > So, a wider question:
> > This shell command was introduced in the heyday of "let's
> > reimplement U-Boot in the EDK2 tree". Mainly, from my impression,
> > it seems to be used in order that people don't need to learn how
> > boot managers and device paths work.
> 
> When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful. 
> 
> > Am I being too harsh?
> > Are there practical uses for this?
> 
> For doing some sort of unit testing of given interface. I found this
> useful. During development, this is useful to transfer generic file
> to development board.

OK, I can see how it could be useful.
My opposition is based on three things:
1) people _are_ trying to use it for boot
2) not a command described by UEFI Shell spec, but I keep seeing
   platforms including it even in RELEASE builds (most likely because 1)
3) code quality/maintainability

> > If the code is to be kept, I think (from a quick glance) that I
> > would also like to see
> >   *Data = NULL
> > in the error path of DownloadFile().

OK, so we don't need to drop it right now, but what's your take on
this comment?

/
    Leif
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:52 PM
> To: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> Cc: Vabhav Sharma <vabhav.sharma@nxp.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org;
> ruiyu.ni@intel.com; jaben.carsey@intel.com; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org;
> siyuan.fu@intel.com; ting.ye@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> 
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:15:49AM +0000, Udit Kumar wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > index fbde3bf..6425fc5 100755
> > > > --- a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > +++ b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > @@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > > >        );
> > > >        goto NextHandle;
> > >
> > > Wow, a goto in a foor loop in a 320-line function.
> > > What could possibly go wrong?
> >
> > Instead of being on some volume, if you are on Shell.
> > Then file open will fail.
> 
> Sure. The above was a snarky comment on the state of the existing code.
> 
> > > >      }
> > > > +    DataSize = FileSize;
> > > >
> > > >      Status = DownloadFile (Mtftp4, RemoteFilePath,
> > > > AsciiRemoteFilePath,
> > > FileSize, BlockSize, &Data);
> > > >      if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > @@ -539,7 +540,6 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > > >        goto NextHandle;
> > > >      }
> > > >
> > > > -    DataSize = FileSize;
> > > >      Status = ShellWriteFile (FileHandle, &FileSize, Data);
> > > >      if (!EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > >        ShellStatus = SHELL_SUCCESS;
> > > > --
> > > > 1.9.1
> > >
> > > So, a wider question:
> > > This shell command was introduced in the heyday of "let's
> > > reimplement U-Boot in the EDK2 tree". Mainly, from my impression, it
> > > seems to be used in order that people don't need to learn how boot
> > > managers and device paths work.
> >
> > When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.
> >
> > > Am I being too harsh?
> > > Are there practical uses for this?
> >
> > For doing some sort of unit testing of given interface. I found this
> > useful. During development, this is useful to transfer generic file to
> > development board.
> 
> OK, I can see how it could be useful.
> My opposition is based on three things:
> 1) people _are_ trying to use it for boot

I agree with this, please see my previous comments, 
' When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.'

> 2) not a command described by UEFI Shell spec, but I keep seeing
>    platforms including it even in RELEASE builds (most likely because 1)
> 3) code quality/maintainability

> > > If the code is to be kept, I think (from a quick glance) that I
> > > would also like to see
> > >   *Data = NULL
> > > in the error path of DownloadFile().
> 
> OK, so we don't need to drop it right now, but what's your take on this
> comment?

I am fine, if you prefer to remove this then we will develop some test application
for unit tests.
In case, we need to maintain this piece of code then above needs to fix as well. 

 
> /
>     Leif
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Hi,

As per commit 0961002352e9115b72f544dded239ad226efe87b

Tftp command will be maintained to extend internal commands and

ShellPkg/DynamicCommand/TftpDynamicCommand/Tftp.c

Looks like a copy of ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c

So, below fix is needed in this case as well.

Please suggest, so we can send the updated patch [incorporating Leif's comments]


Thanks,
Meenakshi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of
> Udit Kumar
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 10:13 AM
> To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> Cc: ruiyu.ni@intel.com; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; ting.ye@intel.com; edk2-
> devel@lists.01.org; jaben.carsey@intel.com; siyuan.fu@intel.com
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:52 PM
> > To: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> > Cc: Vabhav Sharma <vabhav.sharma@nxp.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org;
> > ruiyu.ni@intel.com; jaben.carsey@intel.com; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org;
> > siyuan.fu@intel.com; ting.ye@intel.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:15:49AM +0000, Udit Kumar wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > index fbde3bf..6425fc5 100755
> > > > > --- a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > +++ b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > @@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > > > >        );
> > > > >        goto NextHandle;
> > > >
> > > > Wow, a goto in a foor loop in a 320-line function.
> > > > What could possibly go wrong?
> > >
> > > Instead of being on some volume, if you are on Shell.
> > > Then file open will fail.
> >
> > Sure. The above was a snarky comment on the state of the existing code.
> >
> > > > >      }
> > > > > +    DataSize = FileSize;
> > > > >
> > > > >      Status = DownloadFile (Mtftp4, RemoteFilePath,
> > > > > AsciiRemoteFilePath,
> > > > FileSize, BlockSize, &Data);
> > > > >      if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > > @@ -539,7 +540,6 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > > > >        goto NextHandle;
> > > > >      }
> > > > >
> > > > > -    DataSize = FileSize;
> > > > >      Status = ShellWriteFile (FileHandle, &FileSize, Data);
> > > > >      if (!EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > >        ShellStatus = SHELL_SUCCESS;
> > > > > --
> > > > > 1.9.1
> > > >
> > > > So, a wider question:
> > > > This shell command was introduced in the heyday of "let's
> > > > reimplement U-Boot in the EDK2 tree". Mainly, from my impression, it
> > > > seems to be used in order that people don't need to learn how boot
> > > > managers and device paths work.
> > >
> > > When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.
> > >
> > > > Am I being too harsh?
> > > > Are there practical uses for this?
> > >
> > > For doing some sort of unit testing of given interface. I found this
> > > useful. During development, this is useful to transfer generic file to
> > > development board.
> >
> > OK, I can see how it could be useful.
> > My opposition is based on three things:
> > 1) people _are_ trying to use it for boot
> 
> I agree with this, please see my previous comments,
> ' When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.'
> 
> > 2) not a command described by UEFI Shell spec, but I keep seeing
> >    platforms including it even in RELEASE builds (most likely because 1)
> > 3) code quality/maintainability
> 
> > > > If the code is to be kept, I think (from a quick glance) that I
> > > > would also like to see
> > > >   *Data = NULL
> > > > in the error path of DownloadFile().
> >
> > OK, so we don't need to drop it right now, but what's your take on this
> > comment?
> 
> I am fine, if you prefer to remove this then we will develop some test
> application
> for unit tests.
> In case, we need to maintain this piece of code then above needs to fix as
> well.
> 
> 
> > /
> >     Leif
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> s.01.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fedk2-
> devel&data=02%7C01%7Cmeenakshi.aggarwal%40nxp.com%7Cc2673b1a07e
> 94e9f937b08d5272c6e5b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0
> %7C636457994167308954&sdata=gBy9RA5d1NpsvxQkmET0HFzsJB8FK7KLueE
> NXFTjSHY%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Meenakshi,

The TFTP command is outside the UEFI Shell specification, therefore it is included as a DynamicCommand, not a command built into the shell itself.

I a little confused by your last sentence.  Do you want to send a new patch? or do you have a branch to pick changes from ?

-Jaben


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meenakshi Aggarwal [mailto:meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:43 AM
> To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> Cc: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Ye, Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>; edk2-
> devel@lists.01.org; Carsey, Jaben <jaben.carsey@intel.com>; Fu, Siyuan
> <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> Importance: High
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As per commit 0961002352e9115b72f544dded239ad226efe87b
> 
> Tftp command will be maintained to extend internal commands and
> 
> ShellPkg/DynamicCommand/TftpDynamicCommand/Tftp.c
> 
> Looks like a copy of ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> 
> So, below fix is needed in this case as well.
> 
> Please suggest, so we can send the updated patch [incorporating Leif's
> comments]
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Meenakshi
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of
> > Udit Kumar
> > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 10:13 AM
> > To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> > Cc: ruiyu.ni@intel.com; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; ting.ye@intel.com;
> edk2-
> > devel@lists.01.org; jaben.carsey@intel.com; siyuan.fu@intel.com
> > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:52 PM
> > > To: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> > > Cc: Vabhav Sharma <vabhav.sharma@nxp.com>; edk2-
> devel@lists.01.org;
> > > ruiyu.ni@intel.com; jaben.carsey@intel.com; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org;
> > > siyuan.fu@intel.com; ting.ye@intel.com
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:15:49AM +0000, Udit Kumar wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > index fbde3bf..6425fc5 100755
> > > > > > --- a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > +++ b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > @@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > > > > >        );
> > > > > >        goto NextHandle;
> > > > >
> > > > > Wow, a goto in a foor loop in a 320-line function.
> > > > > What could possibly go wrong?
> > > >
> > > > Instead of being on some volume, if you are on Shell.
> > > > Then file open will fail.
> > >
> > > Sure. The above was a snarky comment on the state of the existing code.
> > >
> > > > > >      }
> > > > > > +    DataSize = FileSize;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >      Status = DownloadFile (Mtftp4, RemoteFilePath,
> > > > > > AsciiRemoteFilePath,
> > > > > FileSize, BlockSize, &Data);
> > > > > >      if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > > > @@ -539,7 +540,6 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > > > > >        goto NextHandle;
> > > > > >      }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -    DataSize = FileSize;
> > > > > >      Status = ShellWriteFile (FileHandle, &FileSize, Data);
> > > > > >      if (!EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > > >        ShellStatus = SHELL_SUCCESS;
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 1.9.1
> > > > >
> > > > > So, a wider question:
> > > > > This shell command was introduced in the heyday of "let's
> > > > > reimplement U-Boot in the EDK2 tree". Mainly, from my impression, it
> > > > > seems to be used in order that people don't need to learn how boot
> > > > > managers and device paths work.
> > > >
> > > > When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.
> > > >
> > > > > Am I being too harsh?
> > > > > Are there practical uses for this?
> > > >
> > > > For doing some sort of unit testing of given interface. I found this
> > > > useful. During development, this is useful to transfer generic file to
> > > > development board.
> > >
> > > OK, I can see how it could be useful.
> > > My opposition is based on three things:
> > > 1) people _are_ trying to use it for boot
> >
> > I agree with this, please see my previous comments,
> > ' When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.'
> >
> > > 2) not a command described by UEFI Shell spec, but I keep seeing
> > >    platforms including it even in RELEASE builds (most likely because 1)
> > > 3) code quality/maintainability
> >
> > > > > If the code is to be kept, I think (from a quick glance) that I
> > > > > would also like to see
> > > > >   *Data = NULL
> > > > > in the error path of DownloadFile().
> > >
> > > OK, so we don't need to drop it right now, but what's your take on this
> > > comment?
> >
> > I am fine, if you prefer to remove this then we will develop some test
> > application
> > for unit tests.
> > In case, we need to maintain this piece of code then above needs to fix as
> > well.
> >
> >
> > > /
> > >     Leif
> > _______________________________________________
> > edk2-devel mailing list
> > edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> > s.01.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fedk2-
> >
> devel&data=02%7C01%7Cmeenakshi.aggarwal%40nxp.com%7Cc2673b1a07e
> >
> 94e9f937b08d5272c6e5b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0
> >
> %7C636457994167308954&sdata=gBy9RA5d1NpsvxQkmET0HFzsJB8FK7KLueE
> > NXFTjSHY%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Jaben,

The patch was not accepted last time because as per Leif
"
> > > > > > This shell command was introduced in the heyday of "let's
> > > > > > reimplement U-Boot in the EDK2 tree". Mainly, from my impression,
> it
> > > > > > seems to be used in order that people don't need to learn how boot
> > > > > > managers and device paths work.
> > > > >
> > > > > When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.
> > > > >"


So, if we are maintaining tftp command, then i will resend the patch with inclusion of one comment of Leif
"
> > > > > > If the code is to be kept, I think (from a quick glance) that I
> > > > > > would also like to see
> > > > > >   *Data = NULL
> > > > > > in the error path of DownloadFile().
"

Thanks,
Meenakshi 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsey, Jaben [mailto:jaben.carsey@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:44 PM
> To: Meenakshi Aggarwal <meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com>; Leif Lindholm
> <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> Cc: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Ye, Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>; edk2-
> devel@lists.01.org; Fu, Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; Udit Kumar
> <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> 
> Meenakshi,
> 
> The TFTP command is outside the UEFI Shell specification, therefore it is
> included as a DynamicCommand, not a command built into the shell itself.
> 
> I a little confused by your last sentence.  Do you want to send a new patch?
> or do you have a branch to pick changes from ?
> 
> -Jaben
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Meenakshi Aggarwal [mailto:meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:43 AM
> > To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Ni, Ruiyu
> <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> > Cc: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Ye, Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>; edk2-
> > devel@lists.01.org; Carsey, Jaben <jaben.carsey@intel.com>; Fu, Siyuan
> > <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> > Importance: High
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As per commit 0961002352e9115b72f544dded239ad226efe87b
> >
> > Tftp command will be maintained to extend internal commands and
> >
> > ShellPkg/DynamicCommand/TftpDynamicCommand/Tftp.c
> >
> > Looks like a copy of ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> >
> > So, below fix is needed in this case as well.
> >
> > Please suggest, so we can send the updated patch [incorporating Leif's
> > comments]
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Meenakshi
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Udit Kumar
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 10:13 AM
> > > To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> > > Cc: ruiyu.ni@intel.com; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; ting.ye@intel.com;
> > edk2-
> > > devel@lists.01.org; jaben.carsey@intel.com; siyuan.fu@intel.com
> > > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:52 PM
> > > > To: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> > > > Cc: Vabhav Sharma <vabhav.sharma@nxp.com>; edk2-
> > devel@lists.01.org;
> > > > ruiyu.ni@intel.com; jaben.carsey@intel.com;
> ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org;
> > > > siyuan.fu@intel.com; ting.ye@intel.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:15:49AM +0000, Udit Kumar wrote:
> > > > > > > diff --git a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > > b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > > index fbde3bf..6425fc5 100755
> > > > > > > --- a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > > @@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > > > > > >        );
> > > > > > >        goto NextHandle;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wow, a goto in a foor loop in a 320-line function.
> > > > > > What could possibly go wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead of being on some volume, if you are on Shell.
> > > > > Then file open will fail.
> > > >
> > > > Sure. The above was a snarky comment on the state of the existing
> code.
> > > >
> > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > +    DataSize = FileSize;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >      Status = DownloadFile (Mtftp4, RemoteFilePath,
> > > > > > > AsciiRemoteFilePath,
> > > > > > FileSize, BlockSize, &Data);
> > > > > > >      if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > > > > @@ -539,7 +540,6 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > > > > > >        goto NextHandle;
> > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -    DataSize = FileSize;
> > > > > > >      Status = ShellWriteFile (FileHandle, &FileSize, Data);
> > > > > > >      if (!EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > > > >        ShellStatus = SHELL_SUCCESS;
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 1.9.1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, a wider question:
> > > > > > This shell command was introduced in the heyday of "let's
> > > > > > reimplement U-Boot in the EDK2 tree". Mainly, from my impression,
> it
> > > > > > seems to be used in order that people don't need to learn how boot
> > > > > > managers and device paths work.
> > > > >
> > > > > When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Am I being too harsh?
> > > > > > Are there practical uses for this?
> > > > >
> > > > > For doing some sort of unit testing of given interface. I found this
> > > > > useful. During development, this is useful to transfer generic file to
> > > > > development board.
> > > >
> > > > OK, I can see how it could be useful.
> > > > My opposition is based on three things:
> > > > 1) people _are_ trying to use it for boot
> > >
> > > I agree with this, please see my previous comments,
> > > ' When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.'
> > >
> > > > 2) not a command described by UEFI Shell spec, but I keep seeing
> > > >    platforms including it even in RELEASE builds (most likely because 1)
> > > > 3) code quality/maintainability
> > >
> > > > > > If the code is to be kept, I think (from a quick glance) that I
> > > > > > would also like to see
> > > > > >   *Data = NULL
> > > > > > in the error path of DownloadFile().
> > > >
> > > > OK, so we don't need to drop it right now, but what's your take on this
> > > > comment?
> > >
> > > I am fine, if you prefer to remove this then we will develop some test
> > > application
> > > for unit tests.
> > > In case, we need to maintain this piece of code then above needs to fix
> as
> > > well.
> > >
> > >
> > > > /
> > > >     Leif
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > edk2-devel mailing list
> > > edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > >
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> > > s.01.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fedk2-
> > >
> >
> devel&data=02%7C01%7Cmeenakshi.aggarwal%40nxp.com%7Cc2673b1a07e
> > >
> >
> 94e9f937b08d5272c6e5b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0
> > >
> >
> %7C636457994167308954&sdata=gBy9RA5d1NpsvxQkmET0HFzsJB8FK7KLueE
> > > NXFTjSHY%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

So I thought we are keeping the command, but I do agree with Leif that better error path logic would be good.  We can wait for Ray to confirm if he has different plans.

-Jaben

> -----Original Message-----
> From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of
> Meenakshi Aggarwal
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 7:19 AM
> To: Carsey, Jaben <jaben.carsey@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm
> <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> Cc: Ye, Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Fu, Siyuan
> <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> Importance: High
> 
> Jaben,
> 
> The patch was not accepted last time because as per Leif
> "
> > > > > > > This shell command was introduced in the heyday of "let's
> > > > > > > reimplement U-Boot in the EDK2 tree". Mainly, from my
> impression,
> > it
> > > > > > > seems to be used in order that people don't need to learn how
> boot
> > > > > > > managers and device paths work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.
> > > > > >"
> 
> 
> So, if we are maintaining tftp command, then i will resend the patch with
> inclusion of one comment of Leif
> "
> > > > > > > If the code is to be kept, I think (from a quick glance) that I
> > > > > > > would also like to see
> > > > > > >   *Data = NULL
> > > > > > > in the error path of DownloadFile().
> "
> 
> Thanks,
> Meenakshi
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carsey, Jaben [mailto:jaben.carsey@intel.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:44 PM
> > To: Meenakshi Aggarwal <meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com>; Leif Lindholm
> > <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> > Cc: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Ye, Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>; edk2-
> > devel@lists.01.org; Fu, Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; Udit Kumar
> > <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> >
> > Meenakshi,
> >
> > The TFTP command is outside the UEFI Shell specification, therefore it is
> > included as a DynamicCommand, not a command built into the shell itself.
> >
> > I a little confused by your last sentence.  Do you want to send a new patch?
> > or do you have a branch to pick changes from ?
> >
> > -Jaben
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Meenakshi Aggarwal [mailto:meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:43 AM
> > > To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Ni, Ruiyu
> > <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> > > Cc: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Ye, Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>; edk2-
> > > devel@lists.01.org; Carsey, Jaben <jaben.carsey@intel.com>; Fu, Siyuan
> > > <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> > > Importance: High
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As per commit 0961002352e9115b72f544dded239ad226efe87b
> > >
> > > Tftp command will be maintained to extend internal commands and
> > >
> > > ShellPkg/DynamicCommand/TftpDynamicCommand/Tftp.c
> > >
> > > Looks like a copy of ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > >
> > > So, below fix is needed in this case as well.
> > >
> > > Please suggest, so we can send the updated patch [incorporating Leif's
> > > comments]
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Meenakshi
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf
> Of
> > > > Udit Kumar
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 10:13 AM
> > > > To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> > > > Cc: ruiyu.ni@intel.com; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; ting.ye@intel.com;
> > > edk2-
> > > > devel@lists.01.org; jaben.carsey@intel.com; siyuan.fu@intel.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:52 PM
> > > > > To: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> > > > > Cc: Vabhav Sharma <vabhav.sharma@nxp.com>; edk2-
> > > devel@lists.01.org;
> > > > > ruiyu.ni@intel.com; jaben.carsey@intel.com;
> > ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org;
> > > > > siyuan.fu@intel.com; ting.ye@intel.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:15:49AM +0000, Udit Kumar wrote:
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > > > b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > > > index fbde3bf..6425fc5 100755
> > > > > > > > --- a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > > > > > > >        );
> > > > > > > >        goto NextHandle;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wow, a goto in a foor loop in a 320-line function.
> > > > > > > What could possibly go wrong?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Instead of being on some volume, if you are on Shell.
> > > > > > Then file open will fail.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure. The above was a snarky comment on the state of the existing
> > code.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > +    DataSize = FileSize;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >      Status = DownloadFile (Mtftp4, RemoteFilePath,
> > > > > > > > AsciiRemoteFilePath,
> > > > > > > FileSize, BlockSize, &Data);
> > > > > > > >      if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > > > > > @@ -539,7 +540,6 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > > > > > > >        goto NextHandle;
> > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -    DataSize = FileSize;
> > > > > > > >      Status = ShellWriteFile (FileHandle, &FileSize, Data);
> > > > > > > >      if (!EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > > > > >        ShellStatus = SHELL_SUCCESS;
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 1.9.1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, a wider question:
> > > > > > > This shell command was introduced in the heyday of "let's
> > > > > > > reimplement U-Boot in the EDK2 tree". Mainly, from my
> impression,
> > it
> > > > > > > seems to be used in order that people don't need to learn how
> boot
> > > > > > > managers and device paths work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am I being too harsh?
> > > > > > > Are there practical uses for this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For doing some sort of unit testing of given interface. I found this
> > > > > > useful. During development, this is useful to transfer generic file to
> > > > > > development board.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I can see how it could be useful.
> > > > > My opposition is based on three things:
> > > > > 1) people _are_ trying to use it for boot
> > > >
> > > > I agree with this, please see my previous comments,
> > > > ' When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.'
> > > >
> > > > > 2) not a command described by UEFI Shell spec, but I keep seeing
> > > > >    platforms including it even in RELEASE builds (most likely because 1)
> > > > > 3) code quality/maintainability
> > > >
> > > > > > > If the code is to be kept, I think (from a quick glance) that I
> > > > > > > would also like to see
> > > > > > >   *Data = NULL
> > > > > > > in the error path of DownloadFile().
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, so we don't need to drop it right now, but what's your take on
> this
> > > > > comment?
> > > >
> > > > I am fine, if you prefer to remove this then we will develop some test
> > > > application
> > > > for unit tests.
> > > > In case, we need to maintain this piece of code then above needs to fix
> > as
> > > > well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > /
> > > > >     Leif
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > edk2-devel mailing list
> > > > edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> > > > s.01.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fedk2-
> > > >
> > >
> >
> devel&data=02%7C01%7Cmeenakshi.aggarwal%40nxp.com%7Cc2673b1a07e
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 94e9f937b08d5272c6e5b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0
> > > >
> > >
> >
> %7C636457994167308954&sdata=gBy9RA5d1NpsvxQkmET0HFzsJB8FK7KLueE
> > > > NXFTjSHY%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel

Hi Ray,

Please share your thoughts on this.


Thanks,
Meenakshi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsey, Jaben [mailto:jaben.carsey@intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:07 PM
> To: Meenakshi Aggarwal <meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com>; Leif Lindholm
> <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> Cc: Ye, Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Fu, Siyuan
> <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> 
> So I thought we are keeping the command, but I do agree with Leif that
> better error path logic would be good.  We can wait for Ray to confirm if he
> has different plans.
> 
> -Jaben
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of
> > Meenakshi Aggarwal
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 7:19 AM
> > To: Carsey, Jaben <jaben.carsey@intel.com>; Leif Lindholm
> > <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> > Cc: Ye, Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Fu, Siyuan
> > <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
> > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> > Importance: High
> >
> > Jaben,
> >
> > The patch was not accepted last time because as per Leif
> > "
> > > > > > > > This shell command was introduced in the heyday of "let's
> > > > > > > > reimplement U-Boot in the EDK2 tree". Mainly, from my
> > impression,
> > > it
> > > > > > > > seems to be used in order that people don't need to learn how
> > boot
> > > > > > > > managers and device paths work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.
> > > > > > >"
> >
> >
> > So, if we are maintaining tftp command, then i will resend the patch with
> > inclusion of one comment of Leif
> > "
> > > > > > > > If the code is to be kept, I think (from a quick glance) that I
> > > > > > > > would also like to see
> > > > > > > >   *Data = NULL
> > > > > > > > in the error path of DownloadFile().
> > "
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Meenakshi
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Carsey, Jaben [mailto:jaben.carsey@intel.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:44 PM
> > > To: Meenakshi Aggarwal <meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com>; Leif Lindholm
> > > <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> > > Cc: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Ye, Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>; edk2-
> > > devel@lists.01.org; Fu, Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; Udit Kumar
> > > <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> > >
> > > Meenakshi,
> > >
> > > The TFTP command is outside the UEFI Shell specification, therefore it is
> > > included as a DynamicCommand, not a command built into the shell itself.
> > >
> > > I a little confused by your last sentence.  Do you want to send a new
> patch?
> > > or do you have a branch to pick changes from ?
> > >
> > > -Jaben
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Meenakshi Aggarwal [mailto:meenakshi.aggarwal@nxp.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:43 AM
> > > > To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; Ni, Ruiyu
> > > <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>
> > > > Cc: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org; Ye, Ting <ting.ye@intel.com>; edk2-
> > > > devel@lists.01.org; Carsey, Jaben <jaben.carsey@intel.com>; Fu,
> Siyuan
> > > > <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> > > > Importance: High
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > As per commit 0961002352e9115b72f544dded239ad226efe87b
> > > >
> > > > Tftp command will be maintained to extend internal commands and
> > > >
> > > > ShellPkg/DynamicCommand/TftpDynamicCommand/Tftp.c
> > > >
> > > > Looks like a copy of ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > >
> > > > So, below fix is needed in this case as well.
> > > >
> > > > Please suggest, so we can send the updated patch [incorporating Leif's
> > > > comments]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Meenakshi
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On
> Behalf
> > Of
> > > > > Udit Kumar
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 10:13 AM
> > > > > To: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> > > > > Cc: ruiyu.ni@intel.com; ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org;
> ting.ye@intel.com;
> > > > edk2-
> > > > > devel@lists.01.org; jaben.carsey@intel.com; siyuan.fu@intel.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:52 PM
> > > > > > To: Udit Kumar <udit.kumar@nxp.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Vabhav Sharma <vabhav.sharma@nxp.com>; edk2-
> > > > devel@lists.01.org;
> > > > > > ruiyu.ni@intel.com; jaben.carsey@intel.com;
> > > ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org;
> > > > > > siyuan.fu@intel.com; ting.ye@intel.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tftp assert fix for openfile failure case
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:15:49AM +0000, Udit Kumar wrote:
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > > > > b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > > > > index fbde3bf..6425fc5 100755
> > > > > > > > > --- a/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellTftpCommandLib/Tftp.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -509,6 +509,7 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > > > > > > > >        );
> > > > > > > > >        goto NextHandle;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wow, a goto in a foor loop in a 320-line function.
> > > > > > > > What could possibly go wrong?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Instead of being on some volume, if you are on Shell.
> > > > > > > Then file open will fail.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure. The above was a snarky comment on the state of the existing
> > > code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > > +    DataSize = FileSize;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >      Status = DownloadFile (Mtftp4, RemoteFilePath,
> > > > > > > > > AsciiRemoteFilePath,
> > > > > > > > FileSize, BlockSize, &Data);
> > > > > > > > >      if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > > > > > > @@ -539,7 +540,6 @@ ShellCommandRunTftp (
> > > > > > > > >        goto NextHandle;
> > > > > > > > >      }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -    DataSize = FileSize;
> > > > > > > > >      Status = ShellWriteFile (FileHandle, &FileSize, Data);
> > > > > > > > >      if (!EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> > > > > > > > >        ShellStatus = SHELL_SUCCESS;
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > 1.9.1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, a wider question:
> > > > > > > > This shell command was introduced in the heyday of "let's
> > > > > > > > reimplement U-Boot in the EDK2 tree". Mainly, from my
> > impression,
> > > it
> > > > > > > > seems to be used in order that people don't need to learn how
> > boot
> > > > > > > > managers and device paths work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Am I being too harsh?
> > > > > > > > Are there practical uses for this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For doing some sort of unit testing of given interface. I found this
> > > > > > > useful. During development, this is useful to transfer generic file
> to
> > > > > > > development board.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, I can see how it could be useful.
> > > > > > My opposition is based on three things:
> > > > > > 1) people _are_ trying to use it for boot
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with this, please see my previous comments,
> > > > > ' When you say about complete boot, then this may not be useful.'
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2) not a command described by UEFI Shell spec, but I keep seeing
> > > > > >    platforms including it even in RELEASE builds (most likely because
> 1)
> > > > > > 3) code quality/maintainability
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > If the code is to be kept, I think (from a quick glance) that I
> > > > > > > > would also like to see
> > > > > > > >   *Data = NULL
> > > > > > > > in the error path of DownloadFile().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, so we don't need to drop it right now, but what's your take on
> > this
> > > > > > comment?
> > > > >
> > > > > I am fine, if you prefer to remove this then we will develop some test
> > > > > application
> > > > > for unit tests.
> > > > > In case, we need to maintain this piece of code then above needs to
> fix
> > > as
> > > > > well.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > /
> > > > > >     Leif
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > edk2-devel mailing list
> > > > > edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> > > > > s.01.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fedk2-
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> devel&data=02%7C01%7Cmeenakshi.aggarwal%40nxp.com%7Cc2673b1a07e
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 94e9f937b08d5272c6e5b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> %7C636457994167308954&sdata=gBy9RA5d1NpsvxQkmET0HFzsJB8FK7KLueE
> > > > > NXFTjSHY%3D&reserved=0
> > _______________________________________________
> > edk2-devel mailing list
> > edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> s.01.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fedk2-
> devel&data=02%7C01%7Cmeenakshi.aggarwal%40nxp.com%7C6f1efaa8f701
> 48a23c7b08d572f79ec1%7Cbd8a2a2207224ec7b35f1c4f0497e341%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636541330242351234&sdata=qOkb3XaVjUhsi3cVkoskQN6z%2Bv8ySuCq1W
> gFk90mZh4%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel