On Mi, 27.07.22 17:35, Chris Murphy (lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >> If the additional barrier to adoption that Fedora imposes is that > >> every distro needs to also include signed efifs ext4 in order to > >> read $BOOT, I think it's too much. > > > > I do not follow that logic. First of all, if they can sign grub or > > sd-boot they should be able to sign efifs too. Secondly, they could > > just embedd the relevant efifs driver in the sd-boot binary, and sign > > the result (see other mail). Hence, you build two binaries. Make one > > of them. Sign one binary. > > Sure. But all the distros need to support and build efifs drivers in > order to support at least common $BOOT file systems across all of > Linux, if they're really truly committed to BLS, if not arbitrary > file systems. > > There's at least ext4, XFS, Btrfs widely used as $BOOT by default > these days. But more when looking at what distro installers allow > /boot to be: f2fs, ZFS, LUKS, LVM... Well, if distributions choose to put boot loader spec drop-ins onto such weird file systems they either didn't understand that the spec is about defining a *shared*, *common* resource, because that way they made it inaccessible to everyone else. Or they did understand it, but simply didn't care. Whether sd-boot is used to read it, or grub doesn't really matter at that point... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
