Re: [PATCH 00/19] Workaround Windows failing to find 64bit SMBIOS entry point with SeaBIOS

[Fiona Ebner]

Am 29.02.24 um 14:18 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> Am 27.02.24 um 16:47 schrieb Igor Mammedov:
>> Windows (10) bootloader when running on top of SeaBIOS, fails to find        
>>     
>> SMBIOSv3 entry point. Tracing it shows that it looks for v2 anchor markers   
>>     
>> only and not v3. Tricking it into believing that entry point is found        
>>     
>> lets Windows successfully locate and parse SMBIOSv3 tables. Whether it       
>>     
>> will be fixed on Windows side is not clear so here goes a workaround.        
>>     
>>                                                                              
>>     
>> Idea is to try build v2 tables if QEMU configuration permits,                
>>     
>> and fallback to v3 tables otherwise. That will mask Windows issue            
>>     
>> form majority of users.                                                      
>>     
>> However if VM configuration can't be described (typically large VMs)         
>>     
>> by v2 tables, QEMU will use SMBIOSv3 and Windows will hit the issue          
>>     
>> again. In this case complain to Microsoft and/or use UEFI instead of         
>>     
>> SeaBIOS (requires reinstall).                                                
>>     
>>                                                                              
>>     
>> Default compat setting of smbios-entry-point-type after series               
>>     
>> for pc/q35 machines:                                                         
>>     
>>   * 9.0-newer: 'auto'                                                        
>>     
>>   * 8.1-8.2: '64'                                                            
>>     
>>   * 8.0-older: '32'                                                          
>>     
>>                                                                              
>>     
>> Fixes: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/2008                    
>>     
> 
> Thank you! I'm happy to confirm that this series works around the issue :)
> 

While I still didn't do any in-depth testing (don't have enough
knowledge for that anyways), I played around a bit more now, check that
nothing obvious breaks also with a Linux VM and also ran a successful
'make check'.

If that is enough, feel free to add:

Tested-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>

Best Regards,
Fiona