On Wed, 2025-02-26 at 12:30 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 13:59, James Bottomley > <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [added correct mailing list for bug report] > > On Tue, 2025-02-25 at 12:10 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do about: > > > > > > commit 908af31f4896f2c0645031f8b74a89d3a8beb5b9 > > > Author: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Sun Jan 19 10:12:12 2025 -0500 > > > > > > efivarfs: fix error on write to new variable leaving remnants > > > > ... > > > > > > It causes a regression in fwupd -- seen in > > > https://github.com/fwupd/fwupd/issues/8495 and > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2346831 so far -- and > > > it seems broken for anyone (including me) updating to 6.14. > > > > OK, so the problem with this as a bug report is that it doesn't > > explain what you're doing. However > > > > > I can work around the behavior in > > > https://github.com/fwupd/fwupd/pull/8500 ;(which is also the > > > arguably correct thing to do) but it's going to cause a panic as > > > I have to get an updated fwupd out on all distros so we'll need > > > releases for multiple branches. > > This code was introduced in the merge window for v6.14, which is due > to be released end of March. How much time do you need? The request in the original was for a few more months. > Derailing LVFS is the last thing I want to do, but we all know how > this works: once a workaround is put in, it is never going to be > removed. I think simply queueing the workaround now (If it works; I'd still like to see a tested by since it's nowhere near a pure revert) in the fixes branch for the v14-rc and immediately queueing its revert in the updates for v15 would give an additional three months automatically and no-one would have to do anything more (unless more time were needed). Regards, James
