Le lun. 7 mars 2016 22:03, Peter Jones <pjo...@redhat.com> a écrit :
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 07:57:21PM +0000, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko > wrote: > > > > > Well, I have a bunch of patches that need to be clean up (or even > > > > > re-examined), and I've also got the secure-boot branch here: > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/vathpela/grub2-fedora/tree/sb > > > > > > > > > > Which is all the patches distros should be carrying to work with > Secure > > > > > Boot correctly. This branch is also recently rebased against > master, > > > > > though I'm not sure what the current thinking is regarding their > path > > > > > upstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally I'd rather include support for it. I'm tired of linux vs. > > > > linuxefi nightmare, and patches have been in the wild long enough. > > > > > > So what's the path forward, then? Just make all efi use linuxefi, like > > > linux vs linux16? That's pretty close to what I've got already, except > > > on arm where it's just "linux" in EFI mode as well. But we could make > > > those aliases for the same thing on that platform easily enough. Or do > > > you have something else in mind? > > > > RedHat/Fedora config is too platform-dependent and platform is detected > at > > mkconfig time rather than at runtime. This is a problem as runtime and > > mkconfig can be different. Case that I see often is coreboot failing due > to > > use of Linux16 (which is a valid protocol for coreboot and is used for > > memtest but Linux crashes with it) but other cases exist, like enabling > or > > disabling of SCM or moving disk to another computer. Can we fix this by > > introducing some helper to detect it on runtime? It can either be a > > function or a real command > > Yeah, we can do something in the config file based on a platform > variable, and then setting the actual commands that way. > > I'm curious as to why you think "linux16" doesn't work for Linux, > though. We use it 100% of the time in Fedora and RHEL, and upstream x86 > kernel maintainers have expressed a preference for it. Using "linux" > instead seems to break much more, for example EDD often does not ever > get exposed to the kernel when it's used. > I'm not against using it for i386-pc but it's broken on every other platform, including i386-coreboot. Ideally we should be able to pass this info on i386-pc as well when using 32-bit protocol but unfortunately there are no fields for this > > -- > Peter >
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
