Once upon a time, Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi at gmail.com> said:> you are right but is not UEFI a standard and it shouldn't work the > same on several vendors? I ask this because this patch broken all my > uefi workstations.The great thing about standards is there's so many to choose from! Also relevant: https://xkcd.com/927/ UEFI has gone through a number of revisions over the years, and has optional bits like Secure Boot (which itself has gone through revisions). Almost any set of standards has undefined corners where vendors interpret things differently. Vendors also have bugs in weird places sometimes. The firmware and boot loaders arguably are the least "exercised" parts of a system - both change rarely and there are few implementations. There's not many combinations, and they don't change a lot. I'm interested to read about the cause of this issue - something like this can be a lesson on "hmm, hadn't thought of that before" type things to watch for in other areas. -- Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net>
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 09:15, Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net> wrote:> > Once upon a time, Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi at gmail.com> said: > > you are right but is not UEFI a standard and it shouldn't work the > > same on several vendors? I ask this because this patch broken all my > > uefi workstations. > > The great thing about standards is there's so many to choose from! Also > relevant: https://xkcd.com/927/ > > UEFI has gone through a number of revisions over the years, and has > optional bits like Secure Boot (which itself has gone through > revisions). Almost any set of standards has undefined corners where > vendors interpret things differently. Vendors also have bugs in weird > places sometimes. >I go with the lines from Pirates of the Carribean movie.. it is less of a rigid code and more a set of guidelines. Computer programmers are a surly lot, and most take any MUST/SHALL in a standard a personal challenge on how to make it pass a test but do so in an interesting way.> The firmware and boot loaders arguably are the least "exercised" parts > of a system - both change rarely and there are few implementations. > There's not many combinations, and they don't change a lot. > > I'm interested to read about the cause of this issue - something like > this can be a lesson on "hmm, hadn't thought of that before" type things > to watch for in other areas. > -- > Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net> > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-- Stephen J Smoogen.
> Once upon a time, Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi at gmail.com> said: >> you are right but is not UEFI a standard and it shouldn't work the >> same on several vendors? I ask this because this patch broken all my >> uefi workstations. > > The great thing about standards is there's so many to choose from! Also > relevant: https://xkcd.com/927/ > > UEFI has gone through a number of revisions over the years, and has > optional bits like Secure Boot (which itself has gone through > revisions). Almost any set of standards has undefined corners where > vendors interpret things differently. Vendors also have bugs in weird > places sometimes. > > The firmware and boot loaders arguably are the least "exercised" parts > of a system - both change rarely and there are few implementations. > There's not many combinations, and they don't change a lot. > > I'm interested to read about the cause of this issue - something like > this can be a lesson on "hmm, hadn't thought of that before" type things > to watch for in other areas.If you ask me I think the real root of the problem is that the UEFI/Secure Boot developers didn't know KISS - or they forgot about it. Once such a beast is born you can not handle it correctly no matter how much you try. Regards, Simon
Il 07/08/20 15:46, Stephen John Smoogen ha scritto:> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 09:15, Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net> wrote: >> Once upon a time, Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi at gmail.com> said: >>> you are right but is not UEFI a standard and it shouldn't work the >>> same on several vendors? I ask this because this patch broken all my >>> uefi workstations. >> The great thing about standards is there's so many to choose from! Also >> relevant: https://xkcd.com/927/ >> >> UEFI has gone through a number of revisions over the years, and has >> optional bits like Secure Boot (which itself has gone through >> revisions). Almost any set of standards has undefined corners where >> vendors interpret things differently. Vendors also have bugs in weird >> places sometimes. >> > I go with the lines from Pirates of the Carribean movie.. it is less > of a rigid code and more a set of guidelines. Computer programmers are > a surly lot, and most take any MUST/SHALL in a standard a personal > challenge on how to make it pass a test but do so in an interesting > way.+1 Jack :D