From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [RFC] ARM VM System Sepcification Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:08:37 +0100 Message-ID: <532D4505.1090603@redhat.com> References: <20140226183454.GA14639@cbox> <20140301152756.67A02C40238@trevor.secretlab.ca> <20140306085213.GU643@mal.justgohome.co.uk> <531843EE.8040102@redhat.com> <53185FB9.1040308@redhat.com> <20140306120449.GA29916@mal.justgohome.co.uk> <20140307122418.2F2C4C408EC@trevor.secretlab.ca> <20140322010206.GF25519@cbox> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cross-distro@lists.linaro.org, Ian Campbell , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , Michael Casadevall , Peter Maydell , Jordan Justen , Rob Herring , Leif Lindholm , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Robie Basak , Stefano Stabellini , "marc.zyngier@arm.com" , Laszlo Ersek , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" To: Christoffer Dall , Grant Likely Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140322010206.GF25519@cbox> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Il 22/03/2014 03:29, Christoffer Dall ha scritto: > 1. Simply mandate that VM implementations support persistent variables > for their UEFI implementation - with whatever constraints that may > put on higher level tools. > > 2. Require that OSes shipped as part of compliant VM images make no > assumption that changes to the UEFI environment will be stored. > > I feel that option number two will break in all sorts of cases, just > like Grant stated above, and it is fundamentally not practical; if a > distribution ships Linux with a UEFI stub that expects to be able to do > something, distributions must modify Linux to conform to this spec. I > think imagining that this spec controls how UEFI support in Linux/Grub > is done in general would be overreaching. Additionally, Michael brought > up the fact that it would be non-UEFI compliant. OSes are already able to cope with loss of changes to UEFI environment are stored, because losing persistent variables is what happens if you copy an image to a new hard disk. Asking implementations for support of persistent variables is a good idea; however, independent of what is in the spec, OSes should not expect that users will enable that support---most of them won't. Paolo