Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:52:36 -0700 From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> To: Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com> Cc: <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>, <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, <bsd-lists@BSDforge.com>, <sjg@juniper.net> Subject: Re: When will the FreeBSD (u)EFI work? Message-ID: <81961.1585536756@kaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <40bacb99-d463-cbad-3ccf-b3ddd6856d10@bsdio.com> References: <318FDBAF-448F-4C55-A9A8-69D71A73E43B@me.com> <344e85545cfc47c9835fc5918e5b1dc1@udns.ultimatedns.net> <20200329211137.012a8fd62b58525b027bcfb6@dec.sakura.ne.jp> <40bacb99-d463-cbad-3ccf-b3ddd6856d10@bsdio.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com> wrote: > 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. FWIW I use loader.efi from head, installed as /efi/boot/bootx64.efi and it works just fine, by simply defining PATH_BOOTABLE_TOKEN to something that marks our (junos) bootable filesystems, no other change is needed. >From secure boot point of view, that's perfect. bootx64.efi has to be signed specially for the BIOS, and it verifies everything else, so the same ESP content "just works" with stable/11,12,...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?81961.1585536756>