Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1284259
Machine UUID format mismatch
Last modified: 2016-03-26 14:02:07 EDT
Created attachment 1097533 [details]
Description of problem:
Machine UUID format mismatch compared with the output of other cool tools
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Run qemu-system-x86_64 \
-boot menu=on -uuid 01234567-89AB-CDEF-EDCB-A98765432101 ...
Machine UUID format -mismatch-
Machine UUID format -match-
Machine UUID 67452301-ab89-efcd-edcb-a98765432101
(qemu) info uuid
# virsh dominfo Rawhide | grep UUID
# dmidecode -s system-uuid
smbios uuid mismatched
SMBIOS: Build aggregate smbios tables and entry point
smbios: Encode UUID according to SMBIOS specification
yeah seems like that the newer smbios format is the issue, seabios.git doesn't show any signs of handling it. I mailed the seabios list about it
Is anyone working on a solution?
I don't think so. For reference here was the thread:
Created attachment 1113947 [details]
Machine UUID format match - SeaBIOS 1.9
Created attachment 1113948 [details]
Machine UUID format match - SeaBIOS 1.8
Created attachment 1113950 [details]
SeaBIOS 1.9 UUID OK
diff --git a/src/fw/biostables.c b/src/fw/biostables.c
index cb74396..52d7730 100644
@@ -312,9 +312,9 @@ display_uuid(void)
- , uuid[ 0], uuid[ 1], uuid[ 2], uuid[ 3]
- , uuid[ 4], uuid[ 5]
- , uuid[ 6], uuid[ 7]
+ , uuid[ 3], uuid[ 2], uuid[ 1], uuid[ 0]
+ , uuid[ 5], uuid[ 4]
+ , uuid[ 7], uuid[ 6]
, uuid[ 8], uuid[ 9]
, uuid, uuid, uuid, uuid, uuid, uuid);
We can't unconditionally change it, the format is dependent on the smbios version. I sent a patch:
(In reply to poma from comment #6)
> Created attachment 1113950 [details]
> SeaBIOS 1.9 UUID OK
> diff --git a/src/fw/biostables.c b/src/fw/biostables.c
> index cb74396..52d7730 100644
> --- a/src/fw/biostables.c
> +++ b/src/fw/biostables.c
> @@ -312,9 +312,9 @@ display_uuid(void)
> - , uuid[ 0], uuid[ 1], uuid[ 2], uuid[ 3]
> - , uuid[ 4], uuid[ 5]
> - , uuid[ 6], uuid[ 7]
> + , uuid[ 3], uuid[ 2], uuid[ 1], uuid[ 0]
> + , uuid[ 5], uuid[ 4]
> + , uuid[ 7], uuid[ 6]
> , uuid[ 8], uuid[ 9]
> , uuid, uuid, uuid, uuid, uuid,
Reported-by: poma <email@example.com>
Tested-by: poma <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Suggested-by: poma <email@example.com>
"biostables: Support SMBIOS 2.6+ UUID format"
(In reply to poma from comment #9)
> "biostables: Support SMBIOS 2.6+ UUID format"
Signed-off-by: Cole Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
13) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:, Suggested-by: and Fixes:
"The Reported-by tag gives credit to people who find bugs and report them and it
hopefully inspires them to help us again in the future."
= hopefully inspires them to help us again in the future =
"A Tested-by: tag indicates that the patch has been successfully tested (in
some environment) by the person named. This tag informs maintainers that
some testing has been performed, provides a means to locate testers for
future patches, and ensures credit for the testers."
= informs maintainers that some testing has been performed =
"A Suggested-by: tag indicates that the patch idea is suggested by the person
named and ensures credit to the person for the idea. Please note that this
tag should not be added without the reporter's permission, especially if the
idea was not posted in a public forum. That said, if we diligently credit our
idea reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the
= credit our idea reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired to help us again in the future =
Thank you very much for your support!
I apologize for not adding a Reported-by tag, it wasn't deliberate, I just didn't think of it.
I'm not going to add Tested-by tags on someone else's behalf. If you want to report your test results, I suggest responding to the actual mail thread in the future. Aside from that you never indicated you actually tested the patch that went upstream
Suggested-by is partly applicable here since you helpfully identified the original seabios bug, but you didn't suggest the actual committed solution which takes more elements into account. So that's a toss up
There's also the problem that you don't report your real name. Probably doesn't matter for these extra meta tags, but at least qemu rejects aliases for Signed-off-by: . Something to consider
If you want to ensure full proper credit in the future, I suggest engaging directly with upstream since you obviously have the capabilities to write and and test patches. That said I will try to be more thoughtful when similar situations arise in the future and give proper credit
Setting to POST (meaning there's a patch available upstream)
After a whole discussion upstream, guess what has been done, nooooothiiiiing.
Therefore, because the original patch arises from here,
simple "thanks" will do, man.
Thank you for filing a helpful bug report and for pushing this along
Pushing 1.9.1 to f24, so reassigning this bug. F23 and earlier aren't on seabios 1.9 series
seabios-1.9.1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-30f49486cc
seabios-1.9.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-30f49486cc
seabios-1.9.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.