From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: change name of efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter to efi_storage_paranoia Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 19:32:51 +0900 Message-ID: <527CBDD3.2020609@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <527C93B5.7010407@jp.fujitsu.com> <527C9B5C.6040509@nod.at> <527CB013.30200@jp.fujitsu.com> <527CB0F4.8080606@nod.at> <527CBC05.6080505@jp.fujitsu.com> <527CBD01.1000908@nod.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <527CBD01.1000908-/L3Ra7n9ekc@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Richard Weinberger Cc: linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, matt.fleming-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, matthew.garrett-05XSO3Yj/JvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, jlee-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org (2013/11/08 19:29), Richard Weinberger wrote: > Am 08.11.2013 11:25, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu: >> (2013/11/08 18:37), Richard Weinberger wrote: >>> Am 08.11.2013 10:34, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu: >>>> (2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote: >>>>> Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu: >>>>>> By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new >>>>>> variable to efi variable storage and shows "efivars: set_variable() failed: >>>>>> status=-28" message. >>>>>> >>>>>> - commit 31ff2f20d9003e74991d135f56e503fe776c127c >>>>>> efi: Distinguish between "remaining space" and actually used space >>>>>> - commit 8c58bf3eec3b8fc8162fe557e9361891c20758f2 >>>>>> x86,efi: Implement efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter >>>>>> - commit f8b8404337de4e2466e2e1139ea68b1f8295974f >>>>>> Modify UEFI anti-bricking code >>>>>> >>>>>> When booting my system, remaining space of efi variable storage is about >>>>>> 5KB. So there is no room that sets a new variable to the storage. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to above works, efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter was prepared >>>>>> for sane UEFI which can do gc and fulfills spec. But why need a system >>>>>> with a sane UEFI set the parameter? It is wrong. A system with a broken >>>>>> UEFI should set the parameter. >>>>> >>>>> And how does one know that his UEFI is broken? >>>> >>>> I have no idea. But at least, bricked board is broken UEFI. >>>> Do you know the issue occurs on several boards or specific board? >>> >>> On *many* boards including laptops.... >>> Please read the history of the whole issue. >> >> Thank you for your comment. >> I has read git log. But there is no information like this. >> So I will read them of related threads again. Do you know good threads >> to know the history of the issue? > > Everything started with an issue that killed Samsung laptops: > http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/22855.html > > Later it was found that if you write too much into UEFI variables many > UEFI implementations will do bad things. Thanks for the information. I will read it. Thanks, Yasuaki Ishimatsu > > Thanks, > //richard >