Re: [PATCH 2/2] efi: Distinguish between "remaining space" and actually used space

[Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 1495 bytes --]

On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 18:12 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:

> The solution you're proposing has the same downsides as 3) - we risk
> having to tweak things either way. The difference is that in the case of
> 3) the tweaking is adding entries to the whitelist, whereas tweaking
> your solution has more chance of introducing further unwanted
> regressions because you'd be tweaking an algorithm, an algorithm that
> relies on the internal implementation of the variable storage code.

We *risk* having to tweak things, and we fail on the side of safety. 

> > Dealing with firmware is hard. This fixes (1) without leaving us with
> > (2), which seems like a net win.
> 
> I'm not convinced that implementing 3) would inevitably lead to 2),
> provided that we apply a bit of common sense when adding entries. I'm
> not advocating some kind of flag day where we add umpteen machines to
> the whitelist.
> 
> For reference, I just pushed two patches to the 'whitelist' branch at,
> 
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git
> 
> which should hopefully illustrate the kind of thing that I'm talking about.

I don't think that works. People are complaining that we broke some
Thinkpads as well, but we also have reports that Thinkpads can be
bricked if we use too much space.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥