[PATCH 1/1] efi_loader: improve efi_var_from_file() description

[Simon Glass]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 at 07:50, Heinrich Schuchardt
<heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com> wrote:
>
> It is unclear to developers why efi_var_from_file() returns EFI_SUCCESS if
> file ubootefi.var is missing or corrupted. Improve the description.
>
> Reported-by: Weizhao Ouyang <o451686892 at gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com>
> ---
>  lib/efi_loader/efi_var_file.c | 7 +++++--
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_var_file.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_var_file.c
> index 62e071bd83..dbf76f93de 100644
> --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_var_file.c
> +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_var_file.c
> @@ -204,8 +204,11 @@ efi_status_t efi_var_restore(struct efi_var_file *buf, bool safe)
>   * File ubootefi.var is read from the EFI system partitions and the variables
>   * stored in the file are created.
>   *
> - * In case the file does not exist yet or a variable cannot be set EFI_SUCCESS
> - * is returned.
> + * On first boot the file ubootefi.var does not exist yet. This is if why we

s/if//

Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>

> + * must return EFI_SUCCESS in this case.
> + *
> + * If the variable file is corrupted, e.g. incorrect CRC32, we do not want to
> + * stop the boot process. We deliberately return EFI_SUCCESS in this case, too.

Does this mean that the file will be erased? Doesn't that mean that
all the settings are lost?

>   *
>   * Return:     status code
>   */
> --
> 2.40.1
>

Regards,
Simon