On Mi, 27.07.22 16:19, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: > >> Boot Loader Spec defines $BOOT as either EFI System partition (ESP) or > >> Extended Boot Loader Partition (XBOOTLDR), and in effect they need to be > >> FAT in order to fulfill the interoperability intent of the spec, because > >> it is a shared $BOOT across all distros. > > > > You can use any FS you want with efifs[1]. > > Yeah, but it's impractical: > > * $BOOT is supposed to be readable by all distros that share $BOOT
Hmm, afaik fedora installs /boot/ currently as ext4, no? *Every* Linux OS should be able to mount that... > * efifs drivers must be signed in order to be loaded on UEFI Secure > Boot enabled systems Well, if fedora can sign a kernel PE image it can also sign an efifs PE image. The efifs code stems from Grub fs drivers. It's not new code. It's a small part of Grub code that has been considered to be good enough in the Grub status quo hence should not require major re-review when loaded as EFI module instead. > * shim is distro specific, and is what provides the key for efifs as > well as the 2nd stage bootloader > > There are already enough barriers to Boot Loader Spec adoption. But > this would be too big a barrier. Dunno. The fedora EFI signing infra shouldn't care if you give it a PE kernel image to sign or a PE efifs driver. I mean, the devil is certainly in the detail, but conceptionally these are not new codepaths, but new payloads used in existing codepaths. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
