On 11/28/18 19:33, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 06:50:50PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> On 11/28/18 16:51, Kevin O'Connor wrote: >>> If we could do it safely that would be fine. My fear is that it >>> introduces a regression. A new config option would be okay, but it >>> doesn't sound like that will help, as it seems that once one narrows >>> down the problem to a bad behaving optionrom, one could just as easily >>> block that optionrom instead.. >> >> Do you mean that a "blacklist" should be added (a static array of >> checksums, of known-bad ROM images)? > > If I understand the bugzilla report correctly, it would be possible to > avoid this issue by using <rom bar='off'/> in libvirt. It appears the > issue is identifying the problem and then there are further issues > with changing that config. > > Implementing a default blacklist is a thought that I had. If we feel > the software we control is working as intended and it is the optionrom > that is broken, then perhaps the focus should be on not running that > optionrom. (Effectively changing the default to run only known good > optionroms on pci passthrough.) I don't think SeaBIOS would be the > place to maintain a blacklist/whitelist though, so it's an easy > proposal for me to make.. I understand if it is not viable.
So, if I understand correctly: - doing something generic in SeaBIOS is too risky / heavy-handed, - discriminating individual oproms in SeaBIOS is out of scope. Well... If we put it like that, I can't say that I disagree. I'll try to carry this over to the RHBZ. Thanks, Laszlo _______________________________________________ SeaBIOS mailing list SeaBIOS@seabios.org https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/seabios
