> Once upon a time, Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi@xxxxxxxxx> 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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
