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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On 1/12/21 5:55 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the thorough reply, Hans! One question inline
> 
> On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 12:31 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/30/20 11:52 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 5:48 PM Marius Schwarz <
>>> fedoradev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 30.12.20 um 22:14 schrieb Michel Alexandre Salim:
>>>>> - a separate partition for storing GRUB config, no matter what
>>>>> architecture, is probably the ideal solution
>>>> Not always. In VMs you would reduce the amount of partitions to
>>>> ease up
>>>> things. The main problem with Vms is, that you have LTS based
>>>> linux
>>>> distros on the host systems which can't mount the vm guest, if
>>>> the guest
>>>> uses newer filesystems. If you then use BTRFS on the boot
>>>> partition or
>>>> store grub configs in partionheaders, you can't access those from
>>>> the
>>>> guest making it impossible to change the bootconfig, if it fails
>>>> for
>>>> some stupid reasons like older pygrub  ( xen ) boot loaders,
>>>> which can't
>>>> handle the kernel images compression/format. Happend last with
>>>> Xenserver
>>>> and Kernel 5.9.
>>>>
>>>> For this, i.E. me, choose to store the boot config on /  so we
>>>> have just
>>>> one partition with ext4, which can easily mounted on the host, as
>>>> ext4
>>>> can be handled by the older LTS systems on the host.
>>>>
>>>> As Fedora is a good server os, if the ui parts have been removed
>>>> ;), it
>>>> should be taken into any consideration, that it may not be a bare
>>>> metal
>>>> installation you make plans for. It still needs to run in good
>>>> old
>>>> stable setups ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>> The issues Michel is referring to do not apply to Fedora Server
>>> using
>>> Btrfs, because outside of Workstation, currently no variant of
>>> Fedora
>>> has cross-layer integration with the bootloader.
>>
>> I do not think that that is entirely true, well it depends on if
>> anaconda
>> also sets the menu_auto_hide=1 variable for other variants. The grub
>> hidden
>> boot menu stuff:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/HiddenGrubMenu
>> https://hansdegoede.livejournal.com/19081.html
>>
>> Should mostly work, assuming they at least use a systemd user-
>> session.
>>
>> The boot menu being hidden or not depends on the boot_success grubenv
>> variable, which gets set by a systemd-timer in the systemd-user
>> session
>> of non-system (aka normal) users if the user-session has lasted at
>> least
>> 2 minutes.
>>
> 
> `boot_success` needs to be cleared per boot though, right? So that if
> the user session timer doesn't set it back (so we assume the boot
> failed), the next boot shows the GRUB menu.
> 
> Where does this happen? I'm under the impression this happened in the
> GRUB execution environment, which is problematic if that environment is
> on a filesystem GRUB can't write to.

Correct this happens in the grub execution environment.

> Apologies for seeing this late, it would be nice to get this
> information going into tomorrow's FESCo meeting since Javier's proposal
> has a -1 that is partly due to concern over breaking the hidden menu
> functionality -- https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2543

So I've read Neal's comment there and what he describes really
is a special corner case, but yes it is possible for people to have
created the special setup he describes and yes in that case moving
grubenv to /boot will break the hidden-menu functionality.

I'm not sure if this warrants a -1 to the proposal though,
I believe documenting this + some workaround for it should be
sufficient.

But as mentioned in the fesco issue this has more to do with the
fact that storing the grubenv in a filesystem-file is a bad idea
in general.

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
the btrfs filesystem header which is reserved for bootloader use.

As @javierm says in the linked fedora-workstation issue, that is
also the long term plan for Fedora, but we really want to discuss
and develop a solution for this with/at grub-upstream so that we
don't end up with conflicting solutions between distributions
which stomp all over each-others data.

Regards,

Hans
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux