Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 16:18:59 +0300 From: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Should/does loader.efi respect the "bootme" GPT attribute ? Message-ID: <63257157-9cdd-0da4-f061-4005319514c2@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfqhi742n9V%2BwCzhniB3QU5Equo%2BsnEOz0xQ2GmPKo27PQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <25469.1608040822@critter.freebsd.dk> <CANCZdfpcrXcgnh1O74A-MhSO2NFqTtq0rJrBDpEfwgxbVDPN8A@mail.gmail.com> <26111.1608051101@critter.freebsd.dk> <CANCZdfqhi742n9V%2BwCzhniB3QU5Equo%2BsnEOz0xQ2GmPKo27PQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15.12.2020 23:10, Warner Losh wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 9:51 AM Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> >>> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?63257157-9cdd-0da4-f061-4005319514c2>