From: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 1:55 PM > > Hi Andy, > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:28 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > My point is that this is clear abuse of the spec and: > > 1) we have to enable the broken, because it is already in the wild with > > the comment that this is an issue > > > > AND > > > > 2) issue an ECR / work with MS to make sure they understand the problem. > > > > This can be done in parallel. What I meant as a prerequisite is to start doing > > 2) while we have 1) on table. > > Oh, okay, that makes sense. If you want to get (2) going, by all means > go for it. I have no idea how to do this myself; Ard said something > about joining the UEFI forum as an individual something or another but > I don't think I'm the man for the job there. Is this something that > Intel can do with their existing membership (is that the right term?) > at the UEFI forum? Or maybe a Microsoft engineer on the list? My team at Microsoft, which works on Linux, filed a bug on this issue against the Hyper-V team about a year ago, probably when the issue was raised during the previous attempt to implement the functionality in Linux. I've talked with the Hyper-V dev manager, and they acknowledge that the ACPI entry Hyper-V provides to guest VMs violates the spec. But changing to an identifier that meets the spec is problematic because of backwards compatibility with Windows guests on Hyper-V that consume the current identifier. There's no practical way to have Hyper-V provide a conformant identifier AND fix all the Windows guests out in the wild to consume the new identifier. As a result, at this point Hyper-V is not planning to change anything. It's a lousy state-of-affairs, but as mentioned previously in this thread, it seems to be one that we will have to live with. Michael > > From my side, regarding (1), I'm basically just waiting for Rafael's > "Acked-by" (or an explicit nack) so I can put this in my tree and move > on. > > Jason
