From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Mon Mar 30 02:34:02 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@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 268BD26DDD5 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 02:34:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nwhitehorn@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) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) 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 48rGk05MwWz3PZs; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 02:34:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nwhitehorn@freebsd.org) Received: from comporellon.tachypleus.net (unknown [IPv6:2605:e000:1314:5ea:997:9b2d:670b:d84d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: nwhitehorn/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25560153C; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 02:33:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nwhitehorn@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: When will the FreeBSD (u)EFI work? To: Kyle Evans , Rebecca Cran Cc: Tomoaki AOKI , FreeBSD Current , bsd-lists@bsdforge.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> From: Nathan Whitehorn Message-ID: <675a41c7-46c1-f548-b285-e5ede55db76a@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 19:33:49 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 02:34:02 -0000 On 2020-03-29 19:09, Kyle Evans wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 6:19 PM Rebecca Cran wrote: >> On 3/29/20 6:11 AM, Tomoaki AOKI wrote: >> >>> 3. based solution looks good to me. >>> >>> IMHO, assuming /efi/bootx[64|32].efi is boot1.efi or loader.efi >>> or EFI environment pointing to either one is properly used, >> >> 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. >> > I have mixed feelings about this -- symlinks don't exist on FAT, > right? So then the maintenance overhead goes up, as you can always > replace \EFI\FreeBSD\ bits, but you need to make sure \EFI\BOOT > components are actually 100% without-a-doubt yours before you replace > them. > > I'd be in favor of installing to \EFI\BOOT\... as well if and only if > the file doesn't already exist, assuming we can figure out how to make > it not a maintenance nightmare -- which I suspect would just mean that > we have some tool that users use to update the ESP rather than > instructing them to examine/replace files manually. > > Thanks, > > Kyle Evans > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > It's basically this that has been the problem: we need a way to manage updates of the EFI loader in this situation, which we don't currently have. The ESP needs to be mounted at a standard point, installworld/freebsd-update/etc. need to know to replace files there, we need to fall back cleanly on older systems, etc. The original (failed -- and I wrote it) concept with boot1.efi was that we could install a shim that never needs updates, which avoids needing to think about these things, but that didn't work ideally. -Nathan