On Do, 09.10.25 01:51, Neal Gompa ([email protected]) wrote:

> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2025, at 12:43 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Mo, 22.09.25 07:54, Simon de Vlieger ([email protected]) wrote:
> >
> > >> Note that Neal also has ideas to move XBOOTLDR into a btrfs subvolume 
> > >> which for
> > >> many of the default editions and spins would remove the problem entirely.
> > >
> > > That is against the XBOOTLDR spec, which says it should be a file
> > > system readable by firmware, i.e. VFAT.
> >
> > XBOOTLDR is being formatted either ext4 or XFS for a while now in Fedora.
> >
> > UEFI spec supports file system drivers. The BL spec doesn't say the file 
> > system support should be built-in to the firmware.
> >
>
> And we've had Btrfs and EXT4 filesystem drivers packaged in Fedora for a
> little while now. So as long as that's on the FAT32 ESP, we're good to
> go for anything that doesn't have its own filesystem code.

Wow, so you have a crap driver running with extreme privileges (UEFI)
that is barely maintained that accesses a block device with zero
cryptographic authentication. And for what exactly? Did you manage to
avoid VFAT that way? No! You didn't, the ESP has to be VFAT, and it
needs to be updated regularly, because that's where the boot loader is
invoked from and where your crap driver is sitting after all. You
solved zero problems, and created a new one. Yay!

I mean, sorry, but this is such a poor poor choice. Why? I can see
zero benefit of doing things like that. I can only see reasons *not*
to do this:

1. relies on undermaintained fs driver, that noone else relies on,
   puts major maintenance burden on fedora

2. massively complex file system on block device that is not
   authenticated, and thus a major *new* and unnecessary attack
   surface

3. is pretty clearly against the xbootldr spec, which suggests vfat
   clearly.

4. creates a compat issue, beacuse only fedora's own boot paths can
   consume this.

5. goes against kernel fs developer wishes which are generally
   strongly opposed to having alternative fs implementations around
   for linux-owned fses.

And so on. And my guess is that this stuff is not even writable from
boot mode, is it? so not boot counting, no random seed mgmt, and so
on.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering, Berlin
-- 
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to