From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>
To: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efivars: Allow disabling use as a pstore backend
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 22:15:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1362694529.15011.211.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130307205915.GF24233@thinkpad-t410>
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 14:59 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:38:49PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 03/07/2013 09:40 AM, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > > We know that with some firmware implementations writing too much data to
> > > UEFI variables can lead to bricking machines. Recent changes attempt to
> > > address this issue, but for some it may still be prudent to avoid
> > > writing large amounts of data until the solution has been proven on a
> > > wide variety of hardware.
> > >
> > > Crash dumps or other data from pstore can potentially be a large data
> > > source. Add a new option, CONFIG_EFI_VARS_PSTORE, which can be set to N
> > > to avoid using efivars as a backend to pstore.
> >
> > What about a command line option?
>
> That could be done. I'm assuming you want this instead of a config
> option, defaulted to on?
>
> How would you feel about a config option for the default value of the
> command line option? I intend to default this to off in Ubuntu for a
> while as a colleague's machine was recently bricked on two different
> occasions after the kernel oopsed. The config option would simplify
> things a bit for us, though we could always carry a patch changing the
> default value.
Not sure why a command line option would be a more natural solution to
this problem? The original patch looked fine to me. All other pstore
backends are guarded by Kconfig options.
Though I could see an argument for a kernel parameter to turn off the
EFI pstore backend code, even if it's compiled into the kernel. But that
would be better as an additional patch.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-07 22:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-07 17:40 Seth Forshee
2013-03-07 20:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-03-07 20:59 ` Seth Forshee
2013-03-07 22:15 ` Matt Fleming [this message]
2013-03-07 22:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-03-11 21:17 ` Seth Forshee
2013-03-12 19:54 ` Matt Fleming
2013-03-12 21:14 ` Seth Forshee
2013-03-13 15:49 ` Matt Fleming
2013-03-13 17:07 ` Seth Forshee
2013-03-13 17:25 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-03-13 18:33 ` Matt Fleming
2013-03-13 19:14 ` Seth Forshee
2013-03-13 19:44 ` Matt Fleming
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1362694529.15011.211.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=matt.fleming@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew.garrett@nebula.com \
--cc=seth.forshee@canonical.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome