gnu-efi: 3.0.17 -> 3.0.15

[wegank]

Description of changes

Reverts #230601.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 23.05 Release Notes (or backporting 22.11 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[wegank]

@ofborg build efitools

[vcunat]

Uh, 33k rebuilds.

[vcunat]

Though if it's wrong, we can't easily avoid such a rebuild. Maybe downgrading on aarch64 only (for now?), but that doesn't seem worth it to me.

[wegank]

I'm going to do a system rebuild to check if aarch64-linux UEFI installations still boot on staging-next. The bug suggests that this is not the case.

[vcunat]

Some installer tests passed on aarch64, but I don't know if they would get broken, off the top of my head: https://hydra.nixos.org/eval/1795672#tabs-still-succeed

[wegank]

I'm going to do a system rebuild to check if aarch64-linux UEFI installations still boot on staging-next. The bug suggests that this is not the case.

Still boots on my machine, so I guess the revert shouldn't be necessary...

[arianvp]

My machine (aarch64 on MacOS Virtualisation.framework) got completely bricked today (EFI doesn't even load system-boot anymore). I have a feeling it might be this version bump that caused it.

[wegank]

Very likely. I guess I'm not able to reproduce the issue as I'm on a different setup (aarch64-darwin, Parallels Desktop).

@vcunat What do you think?

[arianvp]

Yes. can confirm that reverting #233944 fixes my machine. I suggest we reopen this PR and merge it into the next staging-next cycle :)

[vcunat]

OK, done now as cc3ee6d
The cycle was just beginning, so we're hardly lose any work.

[vcunat]

r-ryantm will probably open a new PR soon, but we can then comment and draft it.