On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:40:28PM -0600, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:36:06PM -0600, D. Jared Dominguez wrote:
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:25:59PM -0600, Adam Borowski wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:12:09PM -0600, D. Jared Dominguez wrote:
>>On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 04:57:52PM -0600, Adam Borowski wrote:
>>>If I read that correctly, #773412 fixed i386 on an i386 kernel. As you can
>>>see in the dumps above, i386 userland on an amd64 kernel receives a 32-bit
>>>field rather than 64-bit that patch wants.
>>
>>It's for 32-bit efivar/efibootmgr on 64-bit kernel with 32-bit UEFI
>>(which is why 32-bit efithings are used).
>
>Let's see if I understand right:
>a) 32-bit efivar on 64-bit kernel on 32-bit UEFI receives 64-bit fields,
>b) 32-bit efivar on 64-bit kernel on 64-bit UEFI receives 32-bit fields,
>c) 64-bit efivar on 64-bit kernel on 64-bit UEFI receives 64-bit fields.
>
>a) is claimed in the patch from Dec 17, b) and c) come in dumps I quoted.
Not just claims but does. Remember that you're using the x32 ABI,
which is different.
While initially I found the issue on x32, the same happens on i386.
I wonder how to tell these cases apart then -- both have 32-bit userland on
64-bit kernel (not just efivar, even cat gets such fields).
Or perhaps I'm missing something?
32-bit efivar/efibootmgr on 64-bit kernel without x32 ABI and 32-bit
UEFI.
--
Jared DomÃnguez
Infrastructure Software Engineering
Dell | Enterprise Solutions Group
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
