From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1O50hz-00019z-TV for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:01:03 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O50hy-00018q-56 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:01:02 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54335 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O50hw-00017d-Pk for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:01:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O50hu-000198-Tw for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:01:00 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:48815) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O50hu-00017s-Fp for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:00:58 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2010 18:00:55 -0000 Received: from 165.126.46.212.adsl.ncore.de (HELO 192.168.2.69) [212.46.126.165] by mail.gmx.net (mp021) with SMTP; 22 Apr 2010 20:00:55 +0200 X-Authenticated: #2145628 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19aicFJ4glaqTQ2kZgKQdf9mIYEU2ayTv57kRtPnm nmMDldI/ClqfoN Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:00:13 +0200 From: "Thomas Schmitt" To: grub-devel@gnu.org References: <4BCD962C.5010603@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4BCD962C.5010603@gmail.com> Message-Id: <10646747054989@192.168.2.69> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.56999999999999995 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: xorriso and EFI boot images X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GNU GRUB List-Id: The development of GNU GRUB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:01:02 -0000 Hi, the fresh development upload of xorriso-0.5.5 with timestamp 2010.04.22.160615 implements the wish about --efi-boot : Vladimir Serbinenko wrote 17 Apr 2010: > I would like to have efi+bios cd with 2 eltorito > entries: one with platformid=0 and another one with platformid=0xef. > [...] > I would like that on hybrid BIOS always come in > default entry to avoid hitting BIOS bugs > In case of just EFI the Section header entry and Section entry become > Validation entry and default entry. So now xorriso -as mkisofs has this provisory behavior: -b is for 80x86 BIOS images, platform ID 0. Options -boot-load-size, -no-emul-boot, -boot-info-table affect this -b boot image. --efi-boot is for EFI images, platform id 0xef. Hardcoded are: no emulation, no boot info table. The load size is obtained from the size of the EFI image file and rounded up to full 512 byte blocks. Prone to change is the current rule that the EFI image always is second if a BIOS image is present. I will probably make this depending on the sequence of options in future. Please take care in grub-mkrescue to express your desired sorting by giving -b before --efi-boot. ------------------------------------------------ Quote from El Torito 1.0 paragraph 2.3 "The section header has an identification string. If the BIOS understands the ID, string it may choose to boot the system using one of these entries in place of the INITIAL/DEFAULT entry." What does that mean: "the BIOS understands" ? Do we have to write something particular in there for EFI ? Any idea what one would have to write in case of a 80x86-BIOS image ? The Validation Entry has an ID too. But that is defined as quite meaningless: "This is intended to identify the manufacturer/developer of the CD-ROM." ------------------------------------------------ Currently libisofs is able to write and read up to 32 boot images. It writes each image entry into an own section, but i plan to allow sections of more than one image entry and user provided ID strings. xorriso on the other hand got only a primitive extension efi_path, which lives beneath bin_path. This is not flexible. So i plan for improvements. Nevertheless, the option sequence -b ... --efi-boot ... is promised to always lead to Vladimir's intended boot catalog structure. ------------------------------------------------ I tested with dummy boot images. The boot catalog entries seem to be ok. Now i am curious whether i misunderstood the specs somewhere or whether it really would boot. Have a nice day :) Thomas