From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Mon Mar 30 01:50:55 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D847126B992 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 01:50:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48rFm91GDkz4bfZ for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 01:50:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 02U1WwOI053775; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 18:32:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 02U1WvJo053774; Sun, 29 Mar 2020 18:32:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202003300132.02U1WvJo053774@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: When will the FreeBSD (u)EFI work? In-Reply-To: <40bacb99-d463-cbad-3ccf-b3ddd6856d10@bsdio.com> To: Rebecca Cran Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 18:32:57 -0700 (PDT) CC: junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, bsd-lists@BSDforge.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48rFm91GDkz4bfZ X-Spamd-Bar: ++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has no SPF policy when checking 69.59.192.140) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [2.64 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dnsmgr.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.28)[0.275,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.04)[ip: (0.13), ipnet: 69.59.192.0/19(0.07), asn: 13868(0.03), country: US(-0.05)]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.43)[0.429,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 01:50:56 -0000 > On 3/29/20 6:11 AM, Tomoaki AOKI wrote: > > > > > 3. based solution looks good to me. > > > > IMHO, assuming /efi/bootx[64|32].efi is boot1.efi or loader.efi > > or EFI environment pointing to either one is properly used, > > > That's another thing: we should be installing loader.efi as > \efi\boot\bootx64.efi (as well as \boot\freebsd\loader.efi) since it's > entirely possible to lose the Boot Manager entry and end up with an > unbootable system as a result. Unfortunately people have had bad > experiences with other operating systems overwriting bootx64.efi and > don't believe we should do that. > > > Perhaps I just need to come up with a proof of concept or demo to show > that it is possible without breaking other OSes. Yes please. > Rebecca Cran -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org