From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B396195D92 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:56:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 80C44764C for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:56:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:56:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A2D274559A for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:56:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <410d44a8-95d2-7f99-61fb-8018b49e4df8@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:56:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230117121723.65246-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> <197294f6-2746-37bc-4b88-8b09679b4ba0@proxmox.com> From: Matthias Heiserer In-Reply-To: <197294f6-2746-37bc-4b88-8b09679b4ba0@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.364 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years NICE_REPLY_A -0.094 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [qemuserver.pm, proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 1/2] GUI: efi disk: use correct version with aarch64 X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 12:56:50 -0000 On 18.01.2023 15:07, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > for subject: s/GUI/ui/ to better match the predominantly used one. > > Am 17/01/2023 um 13:17 schrieb Matthias Heiserer: >> Sets the EFI version to 2m when arch=aarch64. >> >> When the VM has arch=aarch64, creating an EFI disk failed with >> "Can't use an undefined value as an ARRAY reference at /usr/share/perl5/PVE/QemuServer.pm line 3382. (500)" >> >> That's because we only have EFI 2m available for aarch64. >> >> Reported in the forum: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/121160/ >> > > If we go this route I'd also enforce using the correct one when changing > or creating VMs via the API. When creating via the API (and not setting a type) the default is used, which works with aarch64. Only if 4m is explicitly set, it errors. The ui user can't set the version, that's why I changed it there. > > Two possible alternatives: > - auto-select the existing one in the backend; drawback: if we ever add > another size for the AAVMF image we need to take extra/special care to > avoid breaking old systems. > > - build also an AAVMF image with 4MB, but one would need to check if this > is really possible in the first place or if there are other drawbacks. To me, the second option seems better, should it work. I don't like the idea of letting the user provide a parameter and silently ignoring it.