[Bug 1170625] New: UEFI: ESP Partition is formatted with FAT16 instead of FAT32
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170625 Bug ID: 1170625 Summary: UEFI: ESP Partition is formatted with FAT16 instead of FAT32 Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: Other OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: YaST2 Assignee: yast2-maintainers@suse.de Reporter: psikodad@gmx.de QA Contact: jsrain@suse.com Found By: --- Blocker: --- A fresh installation of a UEFI machine creates an ESP partition with FAT16 as boot filesystem: # parted GNU Parted 3.3 Using /dev/sda Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands. (parted) print Model: ATA VBOX HARDDISK (scsi) Disk /dev/sda: 68.7GB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: gpt Disk Flags: Number Start End Size File system Name Flags 1 1049kB 525MB 524MB fat16 boot, esp 2 525MB 66.6GB 66.0GB btrfs 3 66.6GB 68.7GB 2149MB linux-swap(v1) swap According to the UEFI specification it should be FAT32. https://uefi.org/specifications "EFI encompasses the use of FAT32 for a system partition, and FAT12 or FAT16 for removable media." Although UEFI firmware must handle FAT12, FAT16 and FAT32 file systems, I recommend to use FAT32. (Just to follow the rules. I don't expect any error cases with FAT16. It just looks like an error.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170625
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170625#c3
Ancor Gonzalez Sosa
The cutover to FAT32 is 512 MiB. We're actually just below that by a slim margin.
IMHO the 500 MiB are just arbitrary and a case could be made to go for 512 MiB as ESP size:
https://github.com/yast/yast-storage-ng/blob/master/src/lib/y2storage/ volume_specification_builder.rb#L98-L114
Ancor, what do you think?
Well, maybe it's time to revisit the min, desired and max sizes for this. Taking into account that: - The minimum size YaST considers correct is 256MiB, due to the limitations of FAT32 in 4K disks. But if we are creating a FAT16 filesystem for such small partitions, maybe the whole concern about FAT32 and 4K is pointless and we can reduce the minimum (something already requested in the past). - The maximum looks indeed a bit arbitrary (I didn't find any strong reason to make it 500 instead of 512) and it has the FAT16 vs FAT32 implication already explained in this bug. I have created this card: https://trello.com/c/kCiF61ap/4149-re-check-sizes-of-proposed-boot-efi. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170625
Arvin Schnell
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170625
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170625#c5
--- Comment #5 from Ancor Gonzalez Sosa
participants (2)
-
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com
-
bugzilla_noreply@suse.com