On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 09:42:52AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:59:33AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 22.10.13 at 11:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >> >>> On 22.10.13 at 11:26, Ian Campbell wrote:
2013/10/23 Michael Chang :
> 2013/10/23 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk :
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:25:39PM +, Woodhouse, David wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:43 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> >
>>> > And looking at bit deeper in the x86/linux boot spec:
>>> >
>>> > EFI HANDOVER PR
2013/10/23 Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk :
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:25:39PM +, Woodhouse, David wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:43 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> >
>> > And looking at bit deeper in the x86/linux boot spec:
>> >
>> > EFI HANDOVER PROTOCOL
>> >
>> > This protocol allo
The correct link is:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=grub.git;a=commit;h=84a0e9699f8d3cd2900892e8fafca42cde09dbfb
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Paulo Flabiano Smorigo/Brazil/IBM
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> After a couple of weeks of development and with a great help from Vladimir
> Serbinenko I
Hi All,
After a couple of weeks of development and with a great help from
Vladimir Serbinenko I committed today [1] the load progress module.
The idea is to display the current status of a loading file in grub.
It works both for local and remote files (network).
An example of the progress
On 10/22/2013 02:24 PM, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> GIT repo is up and running now it's main repo. You can commit your
> patches to it. Keep a copy of any patch you commit in case I have to
> reimport repository.
Thank you for doing this maintenance work, phcoder! As a user of
On 22.10.2013 11:33, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> As was discussed previously, move to git is generally considered
> positive with noone opposing it strongly. So I'll try to do the move.
> 5405 is the latest currect revision. I back up the whole bzr repo
> including personal branc
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:43 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> And looking at bit deeper in the x86/linux boot spec:
>
> EFI HANDOVER PROTOCOL
>
>
>
>
The latter. The code I was looking at definitely has the linuxefi
directive. FWIW, if you install FC18/19 on an EFI system, the grub2
config file uses the linuxefi and companion initrd directives for launch.
--Richard
On 10/22/13 9:51 AM, "Daniel Kiper" wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 04:36:0
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 16:32 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> There are two problems with this:
>
> 1) The kernel will only boot if it's signed with a key in db, not a key
> in MOK.
> 2) grub will read the kernel, but the kernel will have to read the
> initramfs using EFI calls. That means your
> I wonder why Linux can't make the EFI calls to fetch them itself?
It can. It does. It prefers to. This is what the "EFI boot stub" is all about.
But grub2 is crack-inspired and likes to do all kinds of crap that it
shouldn't. It is an exercise in complexity for complexity's sake. The
'linuxe
On 22.10.2013 19:12, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> В Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:16:24 +0200
> Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko пишет:
>
>> GRUB has generic support for signing kernels/modules/whatsoever using
>> GnuPG signatures. You'd just have to ship xen.sig and kernel.sig. This
>> method doesn't ha
В Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:16:24 +0200
Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko пишет:
> GRUB has generic support for signing kernels/modules/whatsoever using
> GnuPG signatures. You'd just have to ship xen.sig and kernel.sig. This
> method doesn't have any controversy associated with EFI stuff but at
>
On 22.10.2013 18:51, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 04:36:04PM +, Maliszewski, Richard L wrote:
>> I may be off-base, but when I was wading through the grub2 code earlier
>> this year, it looked to me like it was going to refuse to launch anything
>> via MB1 or MB2 if the current
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 04:36:04PM +, Maliszewski, Richard L wrote:
> I may be off-base, but when I was wading through the grub2 code earlier
> this year, it looked to me like it was going to refuse to launch anything
> via MB1 or MB2 if the current state was a secure boot launch.
Are you talk
> > Are you (going to be) in Edinburgh? Matthew was just explaining a bunch
> > of this stuff to me, it might be useful for you to get it from the
> > horses mouth instead of laundered through my brain (which is a bit
> > addled afterwards ;-)).
>
> Sadly no. However, if it is possible/needed I co
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:25:39PM +, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:43 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >
> > And looking at bit deeper in the x86/linux boot spec:
> >
> > EFI HANDOVER PROTOCOL
> >
> >
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 05:39:24PM +0200, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> On 22.10.2013 16:51, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > If you use 'linux' module, it will call ExitBootService.
> > If you use 'multiboot' module, it will call ExitBootService too.
> >
> > So if you don't want
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 18:25 +0200, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> On 22.10.2013 18:14, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> >> > Are you (going to be) in Edinburgh? Matthew was just explaining a bunch
> >> > of this stuff to me, it might be useful for you to get it from the
> >> > horses mouth ins
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 12:24 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 04:21:47PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:57 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > That 'that' is a standard PE/COFF image? Could you please point me
> > > to the code that does t
On 22.10.2013 18:14, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>> > Are you (going to be) in Edinburgh? Matthew was just explaining a bunch
>> > of this stuff to me, it might be useful for you to get it from the
>> > horses mouth instead of laundered through my brain (which is a bit
>> > addled afterwards ;-)).
What and
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 04:22:38PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 15:24 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:09 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >
> > > So it can be booted the same way as xen.efi. But my understanding is
> > > that folks prefer a bootlo
On 22.10.2013 18:01, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:42:42PM +, Woodhouse, David wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 16:32 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>
>>> There are two problems with this:
>>>
>>> 1) The kernel will only boot if it's signed with a key in db, not a key
>>> in
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 04:21:47PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:57 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > That 'that' is a standard PE/COFF image? Could you please point me
> > to the code that does that in GRUB2?
>
> As I said earlier in the thread, it's a patch which i
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 05:08:03PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 18:01 +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:42:42PM +, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 16:32 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are two problems with th
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 18:01 +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:42:42PM +, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 16:32 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > >
> > > There are two problems with this:
> > >
> > > 1) The kernel will only boot if it's signed with a key i
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:42:42PM +, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 16:32 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > There are two problems with this:
> >
> > 1) The kernel will only boot if it's signed with a key in db, not a key
> > in MOK.
> > 2) grub will read the kernel, but t
On 22.10.2013 16:51, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> If you use 'linux' module, it will call ExitBootService.
> If you use 'multiboot' module, it will call ExitBootService too.
>
> So if you don't want to the module to call 'grub_efi_finish_boot_services'
> you need to use 'linuxefi' :-)
That's a v
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:51:40AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> And I still haven't found the module that can launch any PE/COFF
> image from GRUB2. Maybe that is a myth.
"chainload" will do this. In fact, it doesn't do much:
static grub_err_t
grub_chainloader_boot (void)
{
grub_efi_b
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:25:39PM +, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> Oh, ignore that. You want the *actual* PE executable entry point, as it
> would get invoked by a real UEFI firmware.
There are two problems with this:
1) The kernel will only boot if it's signed with a key in db, not a key
in M
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 14:18 +, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> > I wonder why Linux can't make the EFI calls to fetch them itself?
>
> It can. It does. It prefers to. This is what the "EFI boot stub" is all about.
Good, this is what I thought, glad to see I'm not talking out my behind
for once!
>
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 15:24 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:09 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> > So it can be booted the same way as xen.efi. But my understanding is
> > that folks prefer a bootloader instead of loading the bzImage in an
> > NVRAM of a platform with p
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:57 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> That 'that' is a standard PE/COFF image? Could you please point me
> to the code that does that in GRUB2?
As I said earlier in the thread, it's a patch which is being carried by
all the distros. It is not in upstream grub.
For ins
>>> On 22.10.13 at 16:51, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> And I still haven't found the module that can launch any PE/COFF
> image from GRUB2. Maybe that is a myth.
I can't exclude that this is a custom a patch as the linuxefi support.
Jan
___
Grub-de
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:18:52PM +, Woodhouse, David wrote:
>
> > I wonder why Linux can't make the EFI calls to fetch them itself?
>
> It can. It does. It prefers to. This is what the "EFI boot stub" is all
> about. But grub2 is crack-inspired and likes to do all kinds of crap that it
>
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:24:28PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:09 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> > So it can be booted the same way as xen.efi. But my understanding is
> > that folks prefer a bootloader instead of loading the bzImage in an
> > NVRAM of a platform
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 09:42:52AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:59:33AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 22.10.13 at 11:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >> >>> On 22.10.13 at 11:26, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:09 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> So it can be booted the same way as xen.efi. But my understanding is
> that folks prefer a bootloader instead of loading the bzImage in an
> NVRAM of a platform with pre-set parameters. Hence that mechanism
> is not used by the majo
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 09:42 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Looking at the Fedora GRUB2 source, the 'struct linux_kernel_header' is
> defined
> in the linux/Documentation/x86/boot.txt and hpa is pretty strict
> about making it backwards compatible. It also seems to support Xen!
>
> (Intere
>>> On 22.10.13 at 11:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 22.10.13 at 11:26, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> > AIUI "efilinux" is somewhat badly named and does not use the Linux Boot
>> > Protocol (i.e. the (b)zImage stuff with real mode entry point) e
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:59:33AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 22.10.13 at 11:45, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 22.10.13 at 11:26, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> > AIUI "efilinux" is somewhat badly named and does not use the Linux Boot
>>> On 22.10.13 at 15:53, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 09:42 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
>> Looking at the Fedora GRUB2 source, the 'struct linux_kernel_header' is
> defined
>> in the linux/Documentation/x86/boot.txt and hpa is pretty strict
>> about making it backwards
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:53:05PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 09:42 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>
> > Looking at the Fedora GRUB2 source, the 'struct linux_kernel_header' is
> > defined
> > in the linux/Documentation/x86/boot.txt and hpa is pretty strict
> > about
>>> On 22.10.13 at 11:26, Ian Campbell wrote:
> AIUI "efilinux" is somewhat badly named and does not use the Linux Boot
> Protocol (i.e. the (b)zImage stuff with real mode entry point) either.
> It actually loads and executes the kernel binary as a PE/COFF executable
> (the native UEFI binary exec
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 10:31 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 22.10.13 at 11:26, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > AIUI "efilinux" is somewhat badly named and does not use the Linux Boot
> > Protocol (i.e. the (b)zImage stuff with real mode entry point) either.
> > It actually loads and executes the kernel
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 20:57 +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 09:54:38AM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 02:57:56PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > During work on multiboot2 protocol support for Xen it was discovered
> > > that memory map pa
As was discussed previously, move to git is generally considered
positive with noone opposing it strongly. So I'll try to do the move.
5405 is the latest currect revision. I back up the whole bzr repo
including personal branches. After this I'll attempt to do git.
Depending on results I'll either m
On 21.10.2013 23:16, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> Mail is big, I think I got your essential points but I didn't read it whole.
> On 21.10.2013 14:57, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> During work on multiboot2 protocol support for Xen it was discovered
>> that memory map passed via
>>> On 21.10.13 at 20:39, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 02:36:38PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 21.10.13 at 14:57, Daniel Kiper wrote:
>> > Separate multiboot2efi module should be established. It should verify
>> > system
>> > kernel and all loaded modules using shim on EF
>>> On 21.10.13 at 20:46, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 03:37:21PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 21.10.13 at 16:23, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
>> >>> wrote:
>> > However my understanding is that the general distro approach is
>> > to use GRUB2 and I think we want to follow the m
50 matches
Mail list logo
