Re: GCL and SELinux: help requested

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Lukas Vrabec <lvra...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/23/2017 10:17 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Lukas Vrabec <lvra...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >>

Re: GCL and SELinux: help requested

Hello, On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Lukas Vrabec wrote: [snip] > > Hello community, > We, as Red Hat SELinux team, apologise for recent delays with our answers to > your requests and questions related to SELinux. We have been quite busy last > couple of weeks so we

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: >> On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 12:06 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: >>> == Scope == >>> * Proposal owners: >>> ** Generate BLS snippets at kernel build time and ship in the kernel >>> packages.

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:54 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 18/06/18 18:15, Peter Jones wrote: > >> That's true - though we actually shipped nearly all of the code to >> implement this stuff f28, minus some parts of the upgrade story and the >> anaconda bits to enable it by default. You can go run

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default ['id' field]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 04:40:41PM +0200, Ondřej Lysoněk wrote: >> On 14.6.2018 12:06, Jan Kurik wrote: >> I noticed the official spec defines a field named "machine-id". AFAICS, >> GRUB2 doesn't implement that option, but it

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default ['id' field]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Peter Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 03:46:59PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> > That raises two questions: >> > 1. Why isn't just the bls-snippet filename used as the key? It's >> >necessarily unique and sh

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default ['id' field]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:36 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Peter Jones wrote: [snip] >> >>> It attempts to sort using the id field, and if this isn't defined >>> other fields are used as fallback in the following order

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default ['id' field]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:36 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas > wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Peter Jones wrote: > > [snip] > >>> >>>> It attempts to sort using the id field, a

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: [snip] >> >>> OK anyway, I don't see broad BLS consensus forming yet, but I do see >>> two items that aren't controversial and could move forward as part of >>> this feature proposal: >>> >>> a. Consistent $BOOT/loader/entries for UEFI and

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > El jue, 14-06-2018 a las 12:06 +0200, Jan Kurik escribió: >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BootLoaderSpecByDefault [snip] >> Fedora already has a lot of

Re: F30 change, bootloaderspec by default

Hello Nicolas, On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 1:41 PM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le 2019-02-10 20:05, Chris Murphy a écrit : > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:08 AM Javier Martinez Canillas > > > Between this feature for F30, and the F29 feature to hide the grub > > menu which c

Re: F30 change, bootloaderspec by default

Hello Nicolas, On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 2:58 PM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le 2019-02-12 13:32, Javier Martinez Canillas a écrit : > Hi Javier > > > I didn't get how it will break the symlink. > > You get a "environment block too small" on kernel update > &g

Re: F30 change, bootloaderspec by default

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 8:53 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 5:40 AM Nicolas Mailhot > wrote: > > [snip] > > > > FYI I had to rescue two EFI rawhide system this week-end borked by grub > > changes. As far as I could reconstruct: > > > > 1. the new grub needs the env file to

Re: F30 change, bootloaderspec by default

Hello Chris, Sorry for the late response but I was on vacation last week. On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 8:06 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:08 AM Javier Martinez Canillas > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:28 AM Chris Murphy wrote: > > > &

Re: F30 change, bootloaderspec by default

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:06 AM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:08 AM Javier Martinez Canillas > wrote: > > You are correct, we will work on more documentation and also better > > tooling to manage the BLS snippets, grubenv file, etc. For example >

Re: F30 change, bootloaderspec by default

Hello Chris, On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:49 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > I glossed over the fact upgrades to Fedora 30 will be converted to the > "bls way" of things. So I want to be sure I understand feature scope: > > - all Fedora 30 editions and spins and archs, *except* 32-bit ARM Yes, because

Re: F30 change, bootloaderspec by default

Hello Wolfgang, On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:51 PM Wolfgang Ulbrich wrote: > > How can i disable this new feature complete? You can disable it by removing the GRUB_ENABLE_BLSCFG=true from /etc/default/grub and re-generating your grub2.cfg with grub2-mkconfig (i.e: grub2-mkconfig -o

Re: F30 change, bootloaderspec by default

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:12 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:33 AM Javier Martinez Canillas > wrote: > > > > - new Fedora 30 installations, and upgrades of Fedora 28 and 29 to Fedora > > > 30 > > > > Correct. Although I would

Re: F30 change, bootloaderspec by default

Hello Chris, On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:28 AM Chris Murphy wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BootLoaderSpecByDefault > > I want this change to succeed but I'm experiencing a regression, and > while trying to troubleshoot it I'm finding it difficult to understand > the myriad

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Improved GRUB menu

Hello Zbyszek, Thanks a lot for your feedback. On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:33 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 05:40:30AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 05:29:51AM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > Improve the GRUB menu by only having the

Re: always update the bootloader during major upgrades

Hello Chris, Thanks for bringing this topic and sorry for the late reply. On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:20 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > Hi, > > This is not a formal proposal, this is for discussion and identifying > liabilities. This email has an x86 GRUB bias only because that's the > bootloader

Re: Does grub2-pc do anything on an EFI system?

Hello Richard, On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 1:23 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > The grub2-pc package doesn't seem to do anything except provide a broken link > in /etc to grub2.cfg... > You are correct, the package is only needed for legacy BIOS installs. There was a bug in Anaconda that caused

Re: removing Xen from Fedora release criteria

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:53 AM Chris Murphy wrote: > > Release criterion > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Final_Release_Criteria#Xen_DomU > > Bug since Fedora 30 also affects Fedora 31 and has been proposed as a > Fedora 31 blocker bug >

Re: Grub, EFI, and SELinux

On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 4:40 AM Jerry James wrote: > > On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 4:33 AM Christopher wrote: > > Those are bugs filed against RPM. Is the RPM package responsible for > > executing lsetfilecon, or is it the grub2 package? If the grub2 > > package, it seems to me that they should know

Re: Grub, EFI, and SELinux

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 10:20 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: [snip] > > I've been closing as duplicates of #1722766 but we are just getting > > too many bugs filed for this issue. > > It's an entirely cosmetical issue in rpm SELinux plugin but as innocent > maintainers are apparently getting

Re: Does the installer detects when a distro have already created BLS?

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 4:00 AM Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 7:48 PM James Cassell > wrote: > > On Sun, May 24, 2020, at 9:39 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 6:42 PM Paul Dufresne via devel > > > wrote: > > > > Le 20-05-24 à 19 h 34, Naheem Zaffar a écrit

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:37 AM Lennart Poettering wrote: [snip] > > My suggestion would be: don't standardize on boot loaders, standardize > on the boot loader spec. And I mean, the real boot loader spec, i.e Agreed. In part that's already the case for Fedora, since now besides GRUB the zipl

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 4:36 PM Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Mi, 01.07.20 13:14, Javier Martinez Canillas (jav...@dowhile0.org) wrote: > > > I'm not sure if this is completely fair, it's true that GRUB's blscfg > > module diverged from the spec by adding support for var

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 10:39 AM Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > On 5.7.2020 18:34, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lennart Poettering > > wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >> Please submit additions to the spec as

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lennart Poettering wrote: [snip] > > Please submit additions to the spec as PRs to systemd github. We added > a number of new keys in the past that sd-boot itself doesn't make use > of (devicetree and such), and we'd be delighted to add more if they > make sense

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Unify the GRUB configuration files location across all supported architectures (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hello Adam, Thanks a lot for your feedback. On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 9:22 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > [snip] > > == Upgrade/compatibility impact == > > > > The changes will only be for new installations, existing systems will > > not be impacted and will continue using the grub.cfg and grubenv

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Unify the GRUB configuration files location across all supported architectures (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hello Tomasz, On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 10:55 AM Tomasz Torcz wrote: [snip] > > I think either never fixing this, or never updating systems to the > > "new way" are both untenable. We saw with the BLS switch many users > > depend on doing in place upgrades. Many were pushing 4 or more years. > >

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Unify the GRUB configuration files location across all supported architectures (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:54 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 31.12.2020 12:37, Peter Robinson wrote: > > Of course it could, who do you propose to do that work and support all > > the various options and code required? > It can be easily installed during Fedora installation by

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Unify the GRUB configuration files location across all supported architectures (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hello Chris, Thanks a lot for the comments. On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 1:02 AM Chris Murphy wrote: [snip] > > That problem was the result of quite old core.img in the MBR gap (or > BIOS Boot partition). As that change simultaneously depended on > shipping a new GRUB module without a way to

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Unify the GRUB configuration files location across all supported architectures (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:48 AM Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 2:24 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: >> >> On 31.12.2020 13:36, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> > I'll update the proposal based on the feedback. >> >> And

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Unify the GRUB configuration files location across all supported architectures (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 4:48 AM Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: [snip] > > As discussed in detail here: > > https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/206 > > we really should be moving away from that. As discussed there Suse > > already has grub-patches to instead store the grubenv in an part of

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Unify the GRUB configuration files location across all supported architectures (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 8:24 PM Brian C. Lane wrote: [snip] > > > > The `$prefix` variable will be set to the device partition where > > `/boot/grub2/grub.cfg` is stored, using the partition filesystem's > > Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID). That way the correct GRUB > > configuration file

Re: Xen support dead?

On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:40 PM PGNet Dev wrote: > > > Actually, the buggy file (/etc/grub.d/20_linux_xen) belongs to the grub2 > > package, so the bug is assigned to a wrong package. > > Not that it matters, but I'd originally assigned it to grub. It was ignored > there as well. > I switched

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 2:29 PM PGNet Dev wrote: > > > Ordinarily, no. But in this case, since GRUB 2.06~rc1 is required to > > solve major critical vulnerabilities and it's very difficult to pull > > the patch set that fixes it (>115 patches!) backwards, GRUB got moved > > forward instead. > > >

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:51 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 4:01 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > Ideally, we should change to a system similar to what openSUSE does > > and have the RPMs install bootloader content into /usr, then execute a > > helper program that copies things

Re: F36 Change proposal: Replace the fbdev drivers with simpledrm and the DRM fbdev emulation layer (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:01 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 11:27 AM Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceFbdevDrivers > > > > == Summary == > > > > This change replaces the legacy Linux frame buffer device (fbdev) > > drivers that are still

Re: F37 Change: Deprecate Legacy BIOS (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 5:51 PM Jared Dominguez wrote: [snip] > > Per my reply to you yesterday, I would be grateful if you would list out > examples here. This is the second time I've heard this, and it's not concrete > enough for a constructive conversation on that topic. > >> 2. The

Re: F37 Change: Legacy Xorg Driver Removal (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:09 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > [snip] > > I'm also not sure I agree it's clear that we'd find more bugs if the > > fallback path didn't exist. People don't usually just boot straight in > > "basic graphics mode", after all. They try a regular boot, and if it > >

Re: future of dual booting Windows and Fedora, redux

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 10:31 PM Lennart Poettering wrote: > [...] > > The lack of an upgrade path, I think, is a bigger issue than a > > system-wide change proposal to: switch to systemd-boot on UEFI, > > including FAT /boot partition, for new clean installs. > > I don't think the upgrade path

Re: F38 proposal: Unified Kernel Support Phase 1 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 6:13 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > [...] > > Does vfat support atomic rename? Is it possible to atomically upgrade > a bootloader/UKI/etc? > -- For Linux, renameat2 RENAME_EXCHANGE is supported in vfat since version v6.0. The relevant commits FYI are: