On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 07:42:37AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 15:34 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > I agree that a revert is probably the right thing to do here, but the > > original patch was there to permit a more accurate calculation of the > > amount of nvram in use, not to provide additional debug information. > > Reverting it is going to differently break a different set of systems > > The only ones that are broken are the Samsung ones. Samsung claims to > have fixed their UEFI firmware, so we could refer any problems to them.
No, reverting this gets us back to the old state of refusing any writes if more than 50% of the variable store *appears* to be used, regardless of whether it's actually used. Which, unfortunately, makes it impossible to install Linux on most UEFI machines. In any case, Samsung clearly haven't fixed this problem on a pile of machines that have already shipped. > Could we hedge the QueryVariableInfo checks with a test for Samsung in > the UEFI identity strings? We could, but apparently some Lenovos also have a similar problem. We just don't have the information we need to implement a comprehensive blacklist, and if we get it wrong we're back to destroying people's hardware. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
