From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Thu Dec 17 13:19:04 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@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 45BF44B7A98 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 13:19:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lev@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CxXdN1QMtz3Pjr for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 13:19:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lev@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 30A7F4B7566; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 13:19:04 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: hackers@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 307154B7A97 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 13:19:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lev@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CxXdN0s5dz3PgP; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 13:19:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lev@FreeBSD.org) Received: from onlyone.not-for.work (onlyone.not-for.work [IPv6:2a01:4f8:201:6350::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: lev/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E8C9C233E3; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 13:19:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lev@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.23.230] (unknown [89.113.128.32]) (Authenticated sender: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru) by onlyone.not-for.work (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B66F5674; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 16:19:00 +0300 (MSK) Reply-To: lev@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Should/does loader.efi respect the "bootme" GPT attribute ? To: Warner Losh , Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" References: <25469.1608040822@critter.freebsd.dk> <26111.1608051101@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Lev Serebryakov Organization: FreeBSD Message-ID: <63257157-9cdd-0da4-f061-4005319514c2@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 16:18:59 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 13:19:04 -0000 On 15.12.2020 23:10, Warner Losh wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 9:51 AM Poul-Henning Kamp >>> It is intentional. UEFI really doesn't want you using non-standard >>> partition flags to determine boot order. >> >> So how would one go about doing "boot0/nanobsd-style" dual >> root the "proper" way in an UEFI environment ? >> > > By using gptboot.efi in the ESP and placaing loader.efi in the UFS > partitions... But You've said, that: > UEFI has its own bootnext protocol, that works in conjunction with the EFI > environment variables to have a more robust, less 'guess what I mean' > approach. So all in all, it's hard, non-standard and doesn't play well with > UEFI." Could it be used here? -- // Lev Serebryakov