On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 18:12 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> The solution you're proposing has the same downsides as 3) - we risk
> having to tweak things either way. The difference is that in the case of
> 3) the tweaking is adding entries to the whitelist, whereas tweaking
> your solution has more c
On 03/04/13 14:48, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 14:11 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
>> This looks like something that will differ between implementations, and the
>> fact that it's appearing in our code is a sure sign that this isn't the way
>> to
>> go.
>
> Our choices right no
On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 14:11 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> This looks like something that will differ between implementations, and the
> fact that it's appearing in our code is a sure sign that this isn't the way to
> go.
Our choices right now are:
1) Break machines that don't garbage collect on e
On 01/04/13 16:14, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> @@ -452,8 +462,33 @@ check_var_size_locked(struct efivars *efivars, u32
> attributes,
> if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> return status;
>
> - if (!storage_size || size > remaining_size || size > max_size ||
> - (remaining_si
On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 11:14 -0400, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> EFI implementations distinguish between space that is actively used by a
> variable and space that merely hasn't been garbage collected yet. Space
> that hasn't yet been garbage collected isn't available for use and so isn't
> counted in t
EFI implementations distinguish between space that is actively used by a
variable and space that merely hasn't been garbage collected yet. Space
that hasn't yet been garbage collected isn't available for use and so isn't
counted in the remaining_space field returned by QueryVariableInfo().
Combine
6 matches
Mail list logo
