Thank you all for considering this case in more detail. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 08:29:39PM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote: > After thinking about this a bit more, I think I see what we're actually > discussing. It's obvious that if software in a VM makes changes to UEFI > variables that are required to be persistent for that VM image to boot > again, then the VM image is no longer portable, as per the spec. No longer portable, and given the current state of implementation, no longer bootable, since we don't support persistent storage yet; certainly not on OpenStack? Or do we have that now? Are we really pushing ahead with a specification that nobody can implement today? How far away are we from a fully compliant implementation?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
