Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754497Ab3IMRhm (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:37:42 -0400 Received: from g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com ([15.193.32.61]:44495 "EHLO g6t0184.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754406Ab3IMRhl (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:37:41 -0400 Message-ID: <1379093858.2197.24.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> Subject: Re: GPT detection regression in efi.c from commit 27a7c64 From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Matt Porter Cc: Karel Zak , Matt Fleming , Linux Kernel Mailing List , torvalds@linux-foundation.org Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:37:38 -0700 In-Reply-To: <52334506.9030802@linaro.org> References: <20130913145033.GA8502@ohporter.com> <1379089736.2197.14.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <52334506.9030802@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 (3.4.4-2.fc17) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1912 Lines: 42 On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 13:01 -0400, Matt Porter wrote: > On 09/13/2013 12:28 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: [...] > > >> I get that this is not compliant with UEFI. I bring this up because > >> before this commit the is_pmbr_valid() check was less pedantic. In 3.11 > >> a PMBR formatted this way did not fail the check. For my particular > >> case, I simply dded out LBA 1 and whacked the SizeInLBA field to comply > >> with the spec and this patch and I'm back in business. We're updating > >> the tools that we inherited to prepopulate our boards with a GPT to be > >> compliant. However, I wondered if this would be a problem for all the > >> people with Windows-generated GPTs as noted in [1]. > > > > I guess this comes down to choosing whether or not we want Linux to be > > more UEFI compliant or not. Should we care if Microsoft decides to go do > > things out of the official spec? I don't know the policy here. The fact > > is that *they* should update their partitioning tools and create valid > > pMBRs. Any way, I'm ok with reverting this commit if deemed necessary. > > I can't say first-hand that Windows 7/8 does what is claimed in this > description as I simply don't have access to any Windows machines here. > If it's true, I would have to agree with Linus that meeting reality if > more important than meeting the spec. Yep, me too. > > Hopefully somebody can confirm that Windows does indeed produce these > special PMBRs that need to be handled as an exception to the spec. I've got a partition with Windows 7 and I can take a look during the weekend. Do you know exactly what tool was used for creating the partition? Thanks, Davidlohr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/