Increased Use Of Windows BitLocker Is Causing Headaches For Linux Dual Booting

[openminded]

boot Windows from the UEFI boot menu, and NOT from Grub's built-in, auto-detected "Windows" entry. That's it

While I agree absolutely, I want to add that there's even more simple way to boot both Linux and Windows from Grub in this situation.
The steps are as follows:
1. Make sure that Grub is the first boot option.
2. Boot Windows normally using EFI boot menu (not Grub).
3. Open BitLocker settings and press Suspend BitLocker protection.
4. Reboot and select Windows in Grub menu. There won't be a BitLocker recovery this time. Actually, there won't be it from now on, because now this boot sequence is considered secure instead of the previous one, so it's gone while protection is on. However, now recovery will pop up if you boot Windows directly via EFI boot menu again - that's the only flaw of this method.

And yes, this has been known for years and there's no news in it.

PS: I use EFI boot menu though as I hate Grub for a bunch of reasons. It is too complicated, strangely organized and bloated with stuff I don't need anyway.

[loganj]

they sure took just a few years to complain about this

[pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx]

Switching to systemd-boot for UEFI systems seems like win to me.

[erniv2]

3. Open BitLocker settings and press Suspend BitLocker protection.

Nice you just made your keys public and destroyed the hole reason bitlocker exists(protecting your data if the device gets stolen or tamperd with)

E.g. if you buy a laptop with small disk and only one partition. Then you clicks a few times and you have all data encryption. Very user friendly and convenient.

Read before you click and if you buy a budget laptop with windows preinstalled and shiney windows sticker you could know this in advance that it will be a pain in the a** to install linux.

[openminded]

Nice you just made your keys public and destroyed the hole reason bitlocker exists(protecting your data if the device gets stolen or tamperd with)

How exactly?
Protection disabling works only for the next boot.
Keys are intact.

The thing I described only makes another (the next one) boot sequence considered as "trusted", no more, no less.

But sure pls feel free to drop another wise thought.

[Anux]

I haven't used grub in years systemd-boot is much less work and errors.

Also whats the problem here? If I explicitly activate bitlocker and secureboot I would consider it a serious bug if it still boots with another software layer between.

[zexelon]

They've been known for years and they've been "resolved" years ago. All you have to do is boot Windows from the UEFI boot menu, and NOT from Grub's built-in, auto-detected "Windows" entry. That's it, you won't get the Bitlocker recovery screen anymore. Magic!

I think the issue here not really about "booting" per say, more about if you have enabled bitlocker (or if it came pre-enabled say through a second hand or tech shop purchase) you cant use any linux installer to resize the partitions and install. As already said, this is exactly as planned the same happens with any other full disk encryption system, its how they should operate. This is more of a buyer beware thing, or just use WSL2.

[erniv2]

How exactly?
Protection disabling works only for the next boot.
Keys are intact.

The thing I described only makes another (the next one) boot sequence considered as "trusted", no more, no less.

But sure pls feel free to drop another wise thought.

Yes are right it works only for the specified number of reboots.

So what´s the point then? you can boot windows from grub once and the next time it does not work again, you tried to offer a better solution for uefi bootloader but it makes it actually worse, 1st you deactivate the bitlocker security for the next reboot, and you also need to every time repeat this deactivate bitlocker again cycle cause i dont know when i want to use windows next time but i want it to work in grub, thats so pointless, and it against what bitlocker is for, if your media gets stolen and installed in a new pc you dont want it to say hey ok i let you boot because someone told me it´s ok to before i was stolen hahaha.....

[mdedetrich]

They actually are concerned these days. Linux is overtaking Windows pretty much everywhere outside of desktops and "pretty much everywhere outside of desktops" is where the big money is at. Sever contracts, cloud hosting, software as a service, etc. Linux is kicking some Microsoft ass with those.

Which is why Microsoft has been investing so much into Linux (including the kernel) in these areas. I mean Microsoft Azure runs more Linux instances than Windows server and they honestly don't care, they embrace Linux in this regard (also WSL).

For those same reasons they also don't care about the bootloader issues with Windows/Linux dual booting, they have no skin in the game in this regard.

[HEL88]

if you buy a budget laptop

Many laptops with only 256/512 GB SSD have one partition and aren't budget.

In Windows is very convenient that after you get the new laptop you have to a few cliks to have encryption your data. On linux is pain. So Windows is much better in this aspect.