From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8753881F5E for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:26:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3688; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1480713978; x=1481923578; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=spHtfM7xvbx8l29XUpjgH2nyZytrhwwkmbO7K7RClFM=; b=emXT+n26qrUiWmkXFLB5KsbeVW6G8WD9h9GtDVFudDJB2cOXyCrpSyd5 U82Q5+W4c/fr/bx/js07QswCarU39D1wqYatdkPN1uhyKi5VuYmKn2IfD cdA5RyL6FdBKqMjJ6q2OMvbSErqc9KlzO9+l+mKH9HcUOpUKaXURtu+Pf Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DgAQCF5kFY/4kNJK1cHAEBBAEBCgEBg?= =?us-ascii?q?nM3DgEBAQEBH4FnjT+mZYUiggaCbIVVPxQBAgEBAQEBAQFiHQuEb4ELAQx0JwS?= =?us-ascii?q?JApxNkiSLNQELJYY+jwUFjzuLKAGBSYgRhzmQOZIMAR83gRmFVYhjgQ0BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,288,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="356019718" Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 02 Dec 2016 21:26:17 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (xch-rcd-009.cisco.com [173.37.102.19]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uB2LQHPa025209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 21:26:17 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-010.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) by XCH-RCD-009.cisco.com (173.37.102.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:26:16 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-010.cisco.com ([173.37.102.20]) by XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com ([173.37.102.20]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 15:26:16 -0600 From: "Matthew Lazarowitz (mlazarow)" To: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Thread-Topic: Handling multiple paths to the same EFI system partition? Thread-Index: AQHSTOK3nCyvoBaDIEqgg2i0SGdsmQ== Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 21:26:16 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.3.160329 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.157.74.110] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.21 Subject: Handling multiple paths to the same EFI system partition? X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 21:26:18 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am trying to deal with a requirement that our firmware show 2 boot option= s when there are multiple paths to a GPT disk with an EFI system partition.= The specific ask is for both paths to be shown in the boot order. However,= the short form device path means these would be duplicate entries which wo= uld cause more issues. Fibre Channel and iSCSI connected drives are the two cases I need to cope w= ith. The UEFI specification seems to sound as if I could violate the spec if I d= o something like this. In section 5.3.3 of the 2.6 spec, there is a statement "If GPT-cognizant so= ftware encounters two disks or partitions with identical GUIDs, results wil= l be indeterminate." Other than section 10.12.2 specifying a iScsiMpioCapab= ility field for network boots, I do not see guidance on how to handle a mul= ti path scenario to a single disk. The best I can think of right now is to modify the OS created option with t= he full path of of each path if 2 or more paths to a specific disk are dete= cted. However, this would seem to be a potential source of conflict between= the OS and the firmware since firmware would be modifying data the OS may = require in a specific format. Is there anything out there to provide some guidance on either rejecting th= is request and blatantly violating the spec, or being able to successfully = fulfill it? Thanks Mathew