From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Thu Dec 17 17:41:58 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 61DE74BDA7A for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:41:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CxfSk0byrz4SwH for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:41:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 14B0F4BE09C; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:41:58 +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 147904BE015 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:41:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-qv1-xf32.google.com (mail-qv1-xf32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f32]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CxfSj6y4Dz4StK for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:41:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-qv1-xf32.google.com with SMTP id l7so13683311qvt.4 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:41:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Qohrv6NQQggoqoWa0FeF27PBGacjmcleq6mvSi59IRc=; b=jL5QIIO3j7ZdEcIdFyTj4ywho8XePZpQ0A1Y0STNZBdIS6cuv/kCdgbcqb5vbDNLwP g/LtaNXnffIZo5LvwYjb+zv2WLak+MdRD9o1bbIgJ8A7vnrKXkmCHISDoIXKmLfqN5oU KU87aeQHcoalUpcYwmoQ8y++XKt6mgw64sO6cmlPTS5ogewHM7bIAYVzH9q3zIVeFvSn nXQ4L2xgJ63Pdhz+YXCeb+WV573xx7ULVwSjQdWLCFieOhIh1UJry1H6hRuGJbTzM65R KvgC2HmquUN1zzezOe3t3+SMD90iwrpZ/2L1GK/Awid3cL2QUiIbNDRdp80pY6roUxIu XXBA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Qohrv6NQQggoqoWa0FeF27PBGacjmcleq6mvSi59IRc=; b=daubV3PL5cbZXebEFdF5jWZU1sdApE4+XQIsf+jVEK6P+ssfjYXK4Vu5rXbgDjUM3O 7sXigOVvi1NEnh2eqPKgYvra5yDNAbKJvrfpvDn4MSfFV2xWMjQDBLAx9OD4vO903HiF S0kVZ5DEwmK2A+XH7Fs8Gj8yTZNuiOZo8rfRuYottqK+rTKUnTx5aWnt6G7AzbeWJs/E xXpKI9Rr0I7+1umAzbAcBgCnt0VL2AVBXqAi31aC+fQYLEy2QOMn1q139WkhpZ4zmq0s zwAGZ6Jk9I17ptm6doDW4PwM77+PBfpbyABuD5XtvkxK5CifmhK84rV6FPviZpUmb9Zt q/bg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5330t8524euRuZMewwUSkueGK8UC+/55HLwWY6UHpVI5flpxkf++ baC1dSk17aSF523Kc7L+0eUo/b/Wdyh3Z4jI9f2iGS4qpQCMoQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJynuTroxhW4M8M7Hde0+TMUIZJsEdW9KnZUQ9nkhpY0zi2JiK2zTG+E54naEcXcPz2ohs0F67FsFLuDhHkVEG8= X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5b82:: with SMTP id 2mr161578qvp.28.1608226916681; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 09:41:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <25469.1608040822@critter.freebsd.dk> <26111.1608051101@critter.freebsd.dk> <63257157-9cdd-0da4-f061-4005319514c2@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <63257157-9cdd-0da4-f061-4005319514c2@FreeBSD.org> From: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 10:41:46 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Should/does loader.efi respect the "bootme" GPT attribute ? To: Lev Serebryakov Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4CxfSj6y4Dz4StK X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.34 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 17:41:58 -0000 On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 6:19 AM Lev Serebryakov wrote: > 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? > Yes. It can. Warner