From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753726Ab3KHJfA (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 04:35:00 -0500 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:34409 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751221Ab3KHJe5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 04:34:57 -0500 X-SecurityPolicyCheck: OK by SHieldMailChecker v2.0.1 X-SHieldMailCheckerPolicyVersion: FJ-ISEC-20120718-3 Message-ID: <527CB013.30200@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:34:11 +0900 From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Weinberger CC: , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: change name of efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter to efi_storage_paranoia References: <527C93B5.7010407@jp.fujitsu.com> <527C9B5C.6040509@nod.at> In-Reply-To: <527C9B5C.6040509@nod.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SecurityPolicyCheck-GC: OK by FENCE-Mail Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (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? Thanks, Yasuaki Ishimatsu > "Oh my board is briked because I wrote too much into a variable, maybe setting > efi_storage_paranoia would have saved me. Let's try with the next board..." ;) > > Thanks, > //richard >