On 03/11/2013 01:17 PM, joeyli wrote:
> Sorry for after I wrote patch, I think it's better we still use your
> original patch to fix this bug, because I found the
> efi_variable->VariableName allocated 1024 size and it also used by old
> vars system.
>
> The following is my patch for reference,
On 03/11/2013 01:17 PM, joeyli wrote:
Sorry for after I wrote patch, I think it's better we still use your
original patch to fix this bug, because I found the
efi_variable-VariableName allocated 1024 size and it also used by old
vars system.
The following is my patch for reference, but I
Hi Matt,
於 四，2013-03-07 於 13:57 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
> On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 11:39 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 18:34 +0800, joeyli wrote:
> > > The VariableNameSize is not reliable when EFI_SUCCESS is returned
> > > because UEFI 2.3.1 spec only mention VariableNameSize
Hi Matt,
於 四，2013-03-07 於 13:57 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 11:39 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 18:34 +0800, joeyli wrote:
The VariableNameSize is not reliable when EFI_SUCCESS is returned
because UEFI 2.3.1 spec only mention VariableNameSize should
於 四，2013-03-07 於 11:39 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
> > This patch works on a normal UEFI machine, we will test it on HP
> z220. I
> > will send out it formally after test success.
>
> Has anyone tried contacting HP to tell them their firmware is doing
> bizarre things?
We will try to contact with HP
Hi Matt,
於 四，2013-03-07 於 13:57 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
> On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 11:39 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 18:34 +0800, joeyli wrote:
> > > The VariableNameSize is not reliable when EFI_SUCCESS is returned
> > > because UEFI 2.3.1 spec only mention VariableNameSize
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 11:39 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 18:34 +0800, joeyli wrote:
> > The VariableNameSize is not reliable when EFI_SUCCESS is returned
> > because UEFI 2.3.1 spec only mention VariableNameSize should updated
> > when EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL is returned. And,
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 18:34 +0800, joeyli wrote:
> The VariableNameSize is not reliable when EFI_SUCCESS is returned
> because UEFI 2.3.1 spec only mention VariableNameSize should updated
> when EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL is returned. And, the 1024 bytes of buffer is
> from old UEFI spec. There doesn't
於 三，2013-03-06 於 11:19 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
> On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:34 +0800, joeyli wrote:
...
> > +static unsigned long variable_name_length(efi_char16_t *variable_name)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long len;
> > + efi_char16_t c;
> > +
> > + len = 2;
> > + do {
> > + c =
於 三，2013-03-06 於 17:20 +0800，Lingzhu Xiang 提到：
> On 03/06/2013 03:34 PM, joeyli wrote:
> > +static unsigned long variable_name_length(efi_char16_t *variable_name)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long len;
> > + efi_char16_t c;
> > +
> > + len = 2;
> > + do {
> > + c = variable_name[len /
於 四，2013-03-07 於 11:39 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
This patch works on a normal UEFI machine, we will test it on HP
z220. I
will send out it formally after test success.
Has anyone tried contacting HP to tell them their firmware is doing
bizarre things?
We will try to contact with HP
於 三，2013-03-06 於 17:20 +0800，Lingzhu Xiang 提到：
On 03/06/2013 03:34 PM, joeyli wrote:
+static unsigned long variable_name_length(efi_char16_t *variable_name)
+{
+ unsigned long len;
+ efi_char16_t c;
+
+ len = 2;
+ do {
+ c = variable_name[len / sizeof(c) - 1];
於 三，2013-03-06 於 11:19 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:34 +0800, joeyli wrote:
...
+static unsigned long variable_name_length(efi_char16_t *variable_name)
+{
+ unsigned long len;
+ efi_char16_t c;
+
+ len = 2;
+ do {
+ c = variable_name[len /
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 18:34 +0800, joeyli wrote:
The VariableNameSize is not reliable when EFI_SUCCESS is returned
because UEFI 2.3.1 spec only mention VariableNameSize should updated
when EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL is returned. And, the 1024 bytes of buffer is
from old UEFI spec. There doesn't have
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 11:39 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 18:34 +0800, joeyli wrote:
The VariableNameSize is not reliable when EFI_SUCCESS is returned
because UEFI 2.3.1 spec only mention VariableNameSize should updated
when EFI_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL is returned. And, the 1024
Hi Matt,
於 四，2013-03-07 於 13:57 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 11:39 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 18:34 +0800, joeyli wrote:
The VariableNameSize is not reliable when EFI_SUCCESS is returned
because UEFI 2.3.1 spec only mention VariableNameSize should
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 14:30 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 mars 2013 à 12:36 +, Matt Fleming a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 12:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 06 mars 2013 à 11:19 +, Matt Fleming a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Also, which machine did you
Le mercredi 06 mars 2013 à 12:36 +, Matt Fleming a écrit :
> On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 12:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> > Le mercredi 06 mars 2013 à 11:19 +, Matt Fleming a écrit :
> >
> > > Also, which machine did you see this behaviour on?
> >
> > HP z220 desktop, System BIOS K51 v
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 12:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 mars 2013 à 11:19 +, Matt Fleming a écrit :
>
> > Also, which machine did you see this behaviour on?
>
> HP z220 desktop, System BIOS K51 v 1.54
>
> this issue is only the "Secure Boot" related variables, which make
Le mercredi 06 mars 2013 à 11:19 +, Matt Fleming a écrit :
> Also, which machine did you see this behaviour on?
HP z220 desktop, System BIOS K51 v 1.54
this issue is only the "Secure Boot" related variables, which make me
think HP incorrectly created them in their latest firmware (where
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 17:20 +0800, Lingzhu Xiang wrote:
> On 03/06/2013 03:34 PM, joeyli wrote:
> > +static unsigned long variable_name_length(efi_char16_t *variable_name)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long len;
> > + efi_char16_t c;
> > +
> > + len = 2;
> > + do {
> > + c =
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:34 +0800, joeyli wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> 於 六，2013-03-02 於 07:41 +0800，joeyli 提到：
> > 於 五，2013-03-01 於 16:31 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
> > > On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 15:17 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 11:20 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > > > > From:
On 03/06/2013 03:34 PM, joeyli wrote:
> +static unsigned long variable_name_length(efi_char16_t *variable_name)
> +{
> + unsigned long len;
> + efi_char16_t c;
> +
> + len = 2;
> + do {
> + c = variable_name[len / sizeof(c) - 1];
> + if (c)
> +
On 03/06/2013 03:34 PM, joeyli wrote:
+static unsigned long variable_name_length(efi_char16_t *variable_name)
+{
+ unsigned long len;
+ efi_char16_t c;
+
+ len = 2;
+ do {
+ c = variable_name[len / sizeof(c) - 1];
+ if (c)
+ len
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:34 +0800, joeyli wrote:
Hi Matt,
於 六，2013-03-02 於 07:41 +0800，joeyli 提到：
於 五，2013-03-01 於 16:31 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 15:17 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 11:20 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
From: Michael Schroeder
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 17:20 +0800, Lingzhu Xiang wrote:
On 03/06/2013 03:34 PM, joeyli wrote:
+static unsigned long variable_name_length(efi_char16_t *variable_name)
+{
+ unsigned long len;
+ efi_char16_t c;
+
+ len = 2;
+ do {
+ c = variable_name[len / sizeof(c)
Le mercredi 06 mars 2013 à 11:19 +, Matt Fleming a écrit :
Also, which machine did you see this behaviour on?
HP z220 desktop, System BIOS K51 v 1.54
this issue is only the Secure Boot related variables, which make me
think HP incorrectly created them in their latest firmware (where they
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 12:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le mercredi 06 mars 2013 à 11:19 +, Matt Fleming a écrit :
Also, which machine did you see this behaviour on?
HP z220 desktop, System BIOS K51 v 1.54
this issue is only the Secure Boot related variables, which make me
think
Le mercredi 06 mars 2013 à 12:36 +, Matt Fleming a écrit :
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 12:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le mercredi 06 mars 2013 à 11:19 +, Matt Fleming a écrit :
Also, which machine did you see this behaviour on?
HP z220 desktop, System BIOS K51 v 1.54
this
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 14:30 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le mercredi 06 mars 2013 à 12:36 +, Matt Fleming a écrit :
On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 12:58 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
Le mercredi 06 mars 2013 à 11:19 +, Matt Fleming a écrit :
Also, which machine did you see this
於 三，2013-03-06 於 15:34 +0800，joeyli 提到：
> Hi Matt,
>
> 於 六，2013-03-02 於 07:41 +0800，joeyli 提到：
> > 於 五，2013-03-01 於 16:31 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
> > > On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 15:17 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 11:20 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > > > > From: Michael
Hi Matt,
於 六，2013-03-02 於 07:41 +0800，joeyli 提到：
> 於 五，2013-03-01 於 16:31 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
> > On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 15:17 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 11:20 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > > > From: Michael Schroeder
> > > >
> > > > On HP z220 system (firmware
Hi Matt,
於 六，2013-03-02 於 07:41 +0800，joeyli 提到：
於 五，2013-03-01 於 16:31 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 15:17 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 11:20 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
From: Michael Schroeder m...@suse.com
On HP z220 system (firmware
於 三，2013-03-06 於 15:34 +0800，joeyli 提到：
Hi Matt,
於 六，2013-03-02 於 07:41 +0800，joeyli 提到：
於 五，2013-03-01 於 16:31 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 15:17 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 11:20 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
From: Michael Schroeder
於 五，2013-03-01 於 16:31 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
> On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 15:17 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 11:20 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > > From: Michael Schroeder
> > >
> > > On HP z220 system (firmware version 1.54), some EFI variables are
> > > incorrectly
> > >
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 15:17 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 11:20 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > From: Michael Schroeder
> >
> > On HP z220 system (firmware version 1.54), some EFI variables are
> > incorrectly
> > named :
> >
> > ls -d /sys/firmware/efi/vars/*8be4d* | grep
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 11:20 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> From: Michael Schroeder
>
> On HP z220 system (firmware version 1.54), some EFI variables are incorrectly
> named :
>
> ls -d /sys/firmware/efi/vars/*8be4d* | grep -v -- -8be returns
>
於 五，2013-03-01 於 17:31 +0800，Lingzhu Xiang 提到：
> On 03/01/2013 11:20 AM, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > From: Michael Schroeder
> >
> > On HP z220 system (firmware version 1.54), some EFI variables are
> > incorrectly
> > named :
> >
> > ls -d /sys/firmware/efi/vars/*8be4d* | grep -v -- -8be returns
On 03/01/2013 11:20 AM, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> From: Michael Schroeder
>
> On HP z220 system (firmware version 1.54), some EFI variables are incorrectly
> named :
>
> ls -d /sys/firmware/efi/vars/*8be4d* | grep -v -- -8be returns
>
On 03/01/2013 11:20 AM, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
From: Michael Schroeder m...@suse.com
On HP z220 system (firmware version 1.54), some EFI variables are incorrectly
named :
ls -d /sys/firmware/efi/vars/*8be4d* | grep -v -- -8be returns
於 五，2013-03-01 於 17:31 +0800，Lingzhu Xiang 提到：
On 03/01/2013 11:20 AM, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
From: Michael Schroeder m...@suse.com
On HP z220 system (firmware version 1.54), some EFI variables are
incorrectly
named :
ls -d /sys/firmware/efi/vars/*8be4d* | grep -v -- -8be returns
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 11:20 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
From: Michael Schroeder m...@suse.com
On HP z220 system (firmware version 1.54), some EFI variables are incorrectly
named :
ls -d /sys/firmware/efi/vars/*8be4d* | grep -v -- -8be returns
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 15:17 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 11:20 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
From: Michael Schroeder m...@suse.com
On HP z220 system (firmware version 1.54), some EFI variables are
incorrectly
named :
ls -d /sys/firmware/efi/vars/*8be4d* | grep -v
於 五，2013-03-01 於 16:31 +，Matt Fleming 提到：
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 15:17 +, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 11:20 +0800, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
From: Michael Schroeder m...@suse.com
On HP z220 system (firmware version 1.54), some EFI variables are
incorrectly
named
44 matches
Mail list logo
