On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 1:45 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote: <snip>
This makes the assumption, which was also made earlier in the thread, that it's somehow impossible to check what bootloader is installed. Why? My bootloader is happy to tell me its version: $ bootctl ... Current Boot Loader: Product: systemd-boot 241-565-g43d51bb Features: ✓ Boot counting ✓ Menu timeout control ✓ One-shot menu timeout control ✓ Default entry control ✓ One-shot entry control File: /EFI/systemd/systemd-bootx64.efi ... Nowadays it's gives the exact git commit it's built from, in the past it was just the release version, but either is enough. Therefore 'bootctl update' can fairly reliably *update*, i.e. do the installation if the thing we have is newer than the version already installed.
That's news to me, and unfortunately it doesn't look as nifty on my system:
... Current Boot Loader: Product: n/a Features: ✗ Boot counting ✗ Menu timeout control ✗ One-shot menu timeout control ✗ Default entry control ✗ One-shot entry control ESP: n/a File: └─n/a
Available Boot Loaders on ESP: ESP: /boot/efi (/dev/disk/by-partuuid/$UUID) File: └─/EFI/BOOT/BOOTIA32.EFI File: └─/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI
Boot Loaders Listed in EFI Variables: Title: Fedora ID: 0x0001 Status: active, boot-order Partition: /dev/disk/by-partuuid/$UUID File: └─/EFI/fedora/shimx64.efi
Title: Linux Firmware Updater ID: 0x0000 Status: active, boot-order Partition: /dev/disk/by-partuuid/$UUID File: └─/EFI/fedora/shimx64.efi ...
Where $UUID is the same for all three occurrences.
Dridi
On Mo, 06.05.19 09:20, Dridi Boukelmoune (dridi.boukelmoune@gmail.com) wrote:
On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 1:45 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote:
<snip> > This makes the assumption, which was also made earlier in the thread, > that it's somehow impossible to check what bootloader is installed. > Why? My bootloader is happy to tell me its version: > $ bootctl > ... > Current Boot Loader: > Product: systemd-boot 241-565-g43d51bb > Features: ✓ Boot counting > ✓ Menu timeout control > ✓ One-shot menu timeout control > ✓ Default entry control > ✓ One-shot entry control > File: /EFI/systemd/systemd-bootx64.efi > ... > Nowadays it's gives the exact git commit it's built from, in the past > it was just the release version, but either is enough. Therefore > 'bootctl update' can fairly reliably *update*, i.e. do the installation > if the thing we have is newer than the version already installed.
That's news to me, and unfortunately it doesn't look as nifty on my system:
... Current Boot Loader: Product: n/a Features: ✗ Boot counting ✗ Menu timeout control ✗ One-shot menu timeout control ✗ Default entry control ✗ One-shot entry control ESP: n/a File: └─n/a
That only works properly on distros that implement the boot loader spec and the boot loader interface properly:
https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_SPECIFICATION https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_INTERFACE
Unfortunately, Fedora/grub do not support either.
(Which is a pity of course, since it also means there's no working "systemctl --boot-loader-entry=" support in Fedora, nor "sytemctl kexec" support).
Lennart
-- Lennart Poettering, Berlin
Hi,
That only works properly on distros that implement the boot loader spec and the boot loader interface properly:
https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_SPECIFICATION https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_INTERFACE
Thanks for the links, I looked briefly when you replied but figured I'd need a quiet setup since this is unfamiliar territory. I have finally read both documents, and they are very accessible even to someone without prior knowledge.
Unfortunately, Fedora/grub do not support either.
(Which is a pity of course, since it also means there's no working "systemctl --boot-loader-entry=" support in Fedora, nor "sytemctl kexec" support).
I see. Do I understand from reading the specification that it was put together during the Fedora 18 days? Do I understand from reading the boot loader interface documented that systemd supported all this in the f18 days too?
Thanks, Dridi
On Sa, 10.08.19 12:18, Dridi Boukelmoune (dridi.boukelmoune@gmail.com) wrote:
Hi,
That only works properly on distros that implement the boot loader spec and the boot loader interface properly:
https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_SPECIFICATION https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_INTERFACE
Thanks for the links, I looked briefly when you replied but figured I'd need a quiet setup since this is unfamiliar territory. I have finally read both documents, and they are very accessible even to someone without prior knowledge.
Unfortunately, Fedora/grub do not support either.
(Which is a pity of course, since it also means there's no working "systemctl --boot-loader-entry=" support in Fedora, nor "sytemctl kexec" support).
I see. Do I understand from reading the specification that it was put together during the Fedora 18 days? Do I understand from reading the boot loader interface documented that systemd supported all this in the f18 days too?
Well, it went through many revisions, and some of the bits are very recent. For example, the pre-boot random seed stuff has been added in v243, of which we only posted an -rc1 so far,
However, the basics have been around very early on, yes.
Lennart
-- Lennart Poettering, Berlin
Well, it went through many revisions, and some of the bits are very recent. For example, the pre-boot random seed stuff has been added in v243, of which we only posted an -rc1 so far,
However, the basics have been around very early on, yes.
Well, from someone not versed in bios, efi and bootloaders the spec looks reasonable. Now I'm wondering why Fedora doesn't implement the interface. Is it only a matter of someone driving the change? Was there some push-back? Or is it more complicated because it needs to involve the installer and a dozen other components?
Dridi
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:14 AM Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmoune@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it went through many revisions, and some of the bits are very recent. For example, the pre-boot random seed stuff has been added in v243, of which we only posted an -rc1 so far,
However, the basics have been around very early on, yes.
Well, from someone not versed in bios, efi and bootloaders the spec looks reasonable. Now I'm wondering why Fedora doesn't implement the interface. Is it only a matter of someone driving the change? Was there some push-back? Or is it more complicated because it needs to involve the installer and a dozen other components?
Implementing the interface needs to happen in the bootloader. Someone would need to do the work in GRUB in a way that GRUB upstream will accept. And then Fedora will get it when rebasing.
-
Chris Murphy -
Dridi Boukelmoune -
Lennart Poettering