Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Manipulate efivars when installing via lzbt #126

Open
nikstur opened this issue Mar 6, 2023 · 6 comments
Open

Manipulate efivars when installing via lzbt #126

nikstur opened this issue Mar 6, 2023 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed tool
Milestone

Comments

@nikstur
Copy link
Member

nikstur commented Mar 6, 2023

We should manipulate the efivars when we install Lanzaboote to point the standard boot entry to the systemd-boot path. This should be implemented via a command line flag that is disabled by default. Otherwise Without being able to disable manipulating efivars, testing becomes annoying (i.e. our rust unit tests) and it also makes building disk images much harder.

@nikstur nikstur added enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed tool labels Mar 6, 2023
@nikstur nikstur added this to the Release 1.0.0 milestone Mar 6, 2023
@RaitoBezarius
Copy link
Member

Otherwise testing becomes annoying and it also makes building disk images much harder.

I didn't understand this part very well.

@nikstur
Copy link
Member Author

nikstur commented Apr 14, 2023

If lzbt always manipulates efivars, we cannot run our rust test suite anymore. So we need to be able to disable manipulating efivars to have easy and quick tests for the rest of the system.

@RaitoBezarius
Copy link
Member

If lzbt always manipulates efivars, we cannot run our rust test suite anymore. So we need to be able to disable manipulating efivars to have easy and quick tests for the rest of the system.

This makes sense. Note that we have EFIVARS manipulation in our NixOS tests. :)

@RaitoBezarius
Copy link
Member

Should we fork to bootctl update and logic to handle A/B bootloaders and avoidance of broken systemd boot or should we go all the way and replace bootctl here?

@nikstur
Copy link
Member Author

nikstur commented Jun 16, 2023

Although there is some charm to re-implementing systemd functionality (because we can upstream it) I think we can and should use bootctl for now. I'll implement something. However I don't know how `bootctl can help with an A/B system for bootloaders.

@RaitoBezarius
Copy link
Member

Although there is some charm to re-implementing systemd functionality (because we can upstream it) I think we can and should use bootctl for now. I'll implement something.

Awesome, I will let you do it then.

However I don't know how `bootctl can help with an A/B system for bootloaders.

Not really, but it's okay :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed tool
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants