Lennart Talks Up systemd's SD-Boot + Boot Loader Specification

[calc]

My system is MBR only

Unify that and get back to me

BIOS/MBR hasn't been native in new systems since ~ 2010. And BIOS/CSM support in UEFI is being removed in new systems starting next year (UEFI Class 3).

So no real need.

[kreijack]

Just for future reference, GRUB won't boot any modern version of ZoL unless you force the creation of the pool to the oldest version(5000) but if you ever upgrade your pool be prepared for a surprise, also GRUB won't boot encrypted roots, etc. etc. etc.

If you have a recent UEFI system(even my b85/970fx oldest motherboards work like a charm with sd-boot) use sd-boot, this little wonder even boot ZFS through ISCSI.

sd-boot works because it searches its files inside the ESP partition (which is not a ZFS filesystem). If you configure GRUB to do the same, then GRUB works even with a non supported filesystem.
The problem is not how the root-fs is formatted, but in which filesystem the grub modules are..

I can't wait until ARM UEFI become the norm, i would love to kill uboot with fire and dance naked around it while it burns

u-boot is not so bad. Of course u-boot is more similar to UEFI than GRUB (i.e. it initializes low thing like the memory timing is some arm board).

[Sniperfox47]

I can still edit the parameters via EFI shell - or even manually run the Linux kernel from withing the shell. You can even have am EFI shell on a USB key or another partition should your motherboard not come with one.

I mean, then you have a bootloader... your EFI shell is itself an EFI boot module that gets loaded by the core firmware, regardless of whether it's embedded or kept on a USB key.

[skeevy420]

BIOS/MBR hasn't been native in new systems since ~ 2010. And BIOS/CSM support in UEFI is being removed in new systems starting next year (UEFI Class 3).

So no real need.

I meant BIOS only and the real need is older systems that are still worth using like Core2Quad/Duo, Athlon 64s, Westmeres....basically all that older stuff a lot of people like to throw in the "third world people" debates. Those CPUs are still worth using for most desktop needs regardless of the OS outside of really modern gaming and they're held back from being able to be used like modern Linux systems will start expecting all of us to use them and start a rift between people that need a separate /boot and its limitations thanks to just a BIOS and people who don't because sd-boot taps directly into the kernel's features.

I have Westmeres and they pair nicely with an RX 580 for 1080p gaming. I really don't feel the need to update. Don't get me wrong, a modern platform and better stuff would be nice to have, but the 16 threads and 48gb of triple channel ram that I currently have is just fine and does everything I need it to. It just sucks when you're happy with what you have but you have to deal with limitations like no full-disk LUKS2 because of Grub, no sd-boot, /boot and Grub and ZFS features and lions and tigers and bears, oh my. I'm sure there are other limitations like maybe making boot environments easier to implement, but those are the ones that effect me the most and add extra bullcrap with how I'd like to do things.

[boxie]

MBR is a disk partition layout, EFI is a firmware specification. You've probably switched from MBR to GPT? GPT works without EFI, too.

Well, yes I messed up my terms. All the warnings about MBR/EFI made me follow the bouncing ball from MBR/BIOS to GPT/EFI.

[Julien Bear]

I remember the outcry when UEFI was introduced and with all it's problems, bugs and unclear privileges in implementation. And the way it has to be signed(by Microsoft).
Well Fedora didn't even support EFI before 2012 and now some people want to cut "legacy" support for older mainboards or what?

[Sniperfox47]

I remember the outcry when UEFI was introduced and with all it's problems, bugs and unclear privileges in implementation. And the way it has to be signed(by Microsoft).

What problems are those?

Bugs? Was it really any worse than half the BIOS builds out there?

And what do you mean it has to be signed? It doesn't since UEFI doesn't require secureboot and every motherboard I'm aware of, even really early ones, offer the option to disable it entirely. And even if you enable secureboot you can sign it yourself, or using a public key from your distribution. There's 0 need to get it signed by Microsoft.

Well Fedora didn't even support EFI before 2012 and now some people want to cut "legacy" support for older mainboards or what?

Again, what are you talking about? Nobody's suggesting legacy MBR bootloaders like GRUB be discontinued.

The only argument here is that it's okay to spin a seperate bootloader (sd-boot) for UEFI and makes sense to do it, and the GRUB-EFI is a terrible bootloader and a waste of effort on the developers standpoint.

If you're on a BIOS system keep using GRUB. It does it's thing just fine. It's obtuse and overly complicated, but it works.

If you're on a UEFI system there are much better bootloaders for you than GRUB-EFI.

[RussianNeuroMancer]

And even if you enable secureboot you can sign it yourself, or using a public key from your distribution. There's 0 need to get it signed by Microsoft.

Except you can't sign it yourself on WinRT tablets, Nokia Lumia smartphones and on HP Elite x3. Only bootloader that starting on these devices is one that signed by Microsoft.

I get what you want to say and this is true on most of PC, but not on 100% of PC (WinRT tablets is x86 PC too).

[Sniperfox47]

Except you can't sign it yourself on WinRT tablets, Nokia Lumia smartphones and on HP Elite x3. Only bootloader that starting on these devices is one that signed by Microsoft.

I get what you want to say and this is true on most of PC, but not on 100% of PC (WinRT tablets is x86 PC too).

And what does that have to do with UEFI? That these devices don't support anything other than Windows is an issue with these devices, not an issue with UEFI. You can create boot signature requirements with BIOS. You can create boot signiture requirements with any other firmware. That's not a thing specific to UEFI.

Windows RT is not UEFI. Windows Phone is not UEFI. They use UEFI but they don't define it. These devices are small integrated embedded devices with limited TPM capabilities that use UEFI in a non-standard way. That in itself says nothing negative about the spec.

People who hate on UEFI for how Microsoft abuses it are as ridiculous as the people hating on USB-C over the fact that the Raspberry Pi Foundation couldn't be halfassed bothered to follow a circuit diagram properly. A shoddy implementation says nothing about the spec.

[RussianNeuroMancer]

That's not a thing specific to UEFI.

Right. Just please don't say "There's 0 need to get it signed by Microsoft." if there is millions of devices that enforce Secure boot and require bootloader signed by Microsoft.