From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Mar 18 17:47:15 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B832AD4377 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC9E01FB4 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id l68so78940814wml.0 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:47:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=multiplay-co-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mofzv+VgT9o5bWp3YVXc/c3v+ABc2tl7x4g2rxFDNhM=; b=fAL3dcjsLN5uefjv6RVQpAnHbYW43JgfjAYSgi4sYMQiNxFjEoV06vT/ZiwwSkOJAd d1g6WUxsgOKrKlsv6dAc0if9G5nqvesTSMvUr+pYhnH2LVY/vm82mWdgNDsCv0otYCHF 8UiOSfqoFVnpNjgZv0i9sdXm6MO+LaYRK9kKv6cbuZ1gSczsBx7Giu2dB4KurJ4yxP0P FmMi97Ryp2IT+KqKSur66oyYzBcLAJxrnDW87TnQsGTbBazaeeWTrs7JeS7NTLT+8u4y /TAA+b3HLcRx48DBy4LNRbFtixAOiQtO56FBL0pOG7JzX4nKfw/KeodVKhcHbKPNobWz LhXw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mofzv+VgT9o5bWp3YVXc/c3v+ABc2tl7x4g2rxFDNhM=; b=X+PODcd+BJ88C5vT+UmR9Un5LdFtfF+5jttA8lF65EUVqY9UKwsAH4HcWtQKLOoQMD tKeUTvh0RjFgzlBXwAM+rSXmYClo+BwU2fmO/Gxp4DDWuK2EQ3ydvCe8Qysay0SNL8H5 3qLzGYn/7OG2jOIhxbF8m5hv8u3RcfL3aUICc/rU+FBAyrhB84bD/8roe3InISzlm/kl N8TsNHPTXzjQrvNWBTwckdbR44EWmB9NQigA1fW7pOqDos983lYNpXrOawV+qgWaKvMx gomDBXmYIA4rMJ80SuNrfRmvSrlvzReNWGZEtGEP7655cQEkCclHssMd1gp2u64C+2j8 UqJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLuEHAidaXnbw6YyCdrv3WskoidN/CXCkttt23FimDDXq2PrPaMBDtS2Xriuo6+/BSE X-Received: by 10.28.225.137 with SMTP id y131mr646665wmg.102.1458323233210; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.1.58] (liv3d.labs.multiplay.co.uk. [82.69.141.171]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ka4sm13148995wjc.47.2016.03.18.10.47.11 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: boot loaders got fatter in the last few days To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <56EC2DD3.6050803@madpilot.net> <56EC34CE.1000002@freebsd.org> <56EC3E0C.2080507@mail.lifanov.com> From: Steven Hartland Message-ID: <56EC3F20.3080104@multiplay.co.uk> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:12 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56EC3E0C.2080507@mail.lifanov.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:15 -0000 On 18/03/2016 17:42, Nikolai Lifanov wrote: > On 03/18/16 13:03, Allan Jude wrote: >> On 2016-03-18 12:33, Guido Falsi wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have just update one of my machines and noticed the booloaders files >>> got quite fat in the last few days, some by a big margin. >>> >>> on an updated machine(r296993): >>> >>>> ls -l /boot/*boot* >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 8192 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/boot >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 512 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/boot0 >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 512 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/boot0sio >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 512 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/boot1 >>> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 72152 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/boot1.efi >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 819200 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/boot1.efifat >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 7680 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/boot2 >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 1185 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/cdboot >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 85794 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/gptboot >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 110546 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/gptzfsboot >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 358400 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/pxeboot >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 341248 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/userboot.so >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 66048 Mar 18 16:47 /boot/zfsboot >>> >>> from a machine I still have not updated(r296719): >>> >>>> ls -l /boot/*boot* >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 8192 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/boot >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 512 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/boot0 >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 512 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/boot0sio >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 512 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/boot1 >>> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 72152 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/boot1.efi >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 819200 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/boot1.efifat >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 7680 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/boot2 >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 1185 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/cdboot >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 16059 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/gptboot >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 41511 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/gptzfsboot >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 288768 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/pxeboot >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 341208 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/userboot.so >>> -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 66048 Mar 13 21:01 /boot/zfsboot >>> >>> I noticed because mu gpt boot partition is 64K and gptzfsboot just >>> passed 100K. >>> >>> Is this expected and I'm supposed to repartition or is this an unwanted >>> mistake? >>> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> >> This is a side effect of the loader gaining the ability to boot from >> GELI encrypted partitions. >> >> You can compile with LOADER_NO_GELI_SUPPORT to disable this to get back >> to a smaller one if you need. >> >> Maybe we should be putting the GELI enabled boot blocks in a different >> filename? I generally wanted to avoid creating a new version of each >> bootcode with GELI support. >> >> My goal somewhere down the road is to create a single bootcode that can >> do UFS and ZFS, then maybe we can have gptboot and gptgeliboot or >> something. >> >> > Maybe a single gptbootlite for minimum viable case of UFS+nothing fancy? > At some point in the near future users that want additional features > will re-partition and bsdinstall will create larger partitions for boot > and this won't be a problem. > > P.S.: Allan, do you plan to enable GELI support for boot1.efi? > Makes it harder to use more features, so I would vote don't do this, keep a single boot image its bad enough we have separate zfs ufs loaders already.