From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: pbonzini@redhat.com (Paolo Bonzini)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 09:08:37 +0100
Subject: [RFC] ARM VM System Sepcification
In-Reply-To: <20140322010206.GF25519@cbox>
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>
Message-ID: <532D4505.1090603@redhat.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.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