Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> writes: > On 1/20/26 14:36, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> The EFI_PARTITION_INFO_PROTOCOL test was added before the protocol fully >> supported MBR partitions. As a result, it lacked specific checks for the >> content of the raw MBR partition record. >> >> Now that MBR support has been implemented, enhance the selftest to provide >> coverage for the MBR entries too. >> >> This verifies that the protocol correctly reads and exposes MBR partition >> records and prevents this functionality to regress due future changes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <[email protected]> >> --- >> >> lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c >> b/lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c >> index f145e58a267a..50d1fb29e1ef 100644 >> --- a/lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c >> +++ b/lib/efi_selftest/efi_selftest_block_device.c >> @@ -404,6 +404,18 @@ static int execute(void) >> part_info->system); >> return EFI_ST_FAILURE; >> } >> + /* The first partition starts at LBA 1 on the test image */ >> + if (part_info->info.mbr.start_sect != 1) { >> + efi_st_error("MBR start sector %d, expected 1\n", >> + part_info->info.mbr.start_sect); >> + return EFI_ST_FAILURE; >> + } >> + /* The partition type is FAT12 (0x01) in the test image */ >> + if (part_info->info.mbr.sys_ind != 0x01) { >> + efi_st_error("MBR system indicator %d, expected 1\n", >> + part_info->info.mbr.sys_ind); >> + return EFI_ST_FAILURE; >> + } > > How about defining a static variable with all fields and using memcmp() > to check them all? >
Makes sense. I'll do that in v2 as well. Thanks! > Best regards > > Heinrich > -- Best regards, Javier Martinez Canillas Core Platforms Red Hat
