From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-f194.google.com ([209.85.222.194]:33358 "EHLO mail-qk1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728605AbeISAsK (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 20:48:10 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f194.google.com with SMTP id z78-v6so1670283qka.0 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: GRUB writing to grubenv outside of kernel fs code To: Chris Murphy , Andrei Borzenkov Cc: Btrfs BTRFS References: From: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:13:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2018-09-18 14:57, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: >> 18.09.2018 08:37, Chris Murphy пишет: > >>> The patches aren't upstream yet? Will they be? >>> >> >> I do not know. Personally I think much easier is to make grub location >> independent of /boot, allowing grub be installed in separate partition. >> This automatically covers all other cases (like MD, LVM etc). > > The only case where I'm aware of this happens is Fedora on UEFI where > they write grubenv and grub.cfg on the FAT ESP. I'm pretty sure > upstream expects grubenv and grub.cfg at /boot/grub and I haven't ever > seen it elsewhere (except Fedora on UEFI). > > I'm not sure this is much easier. Yet another volume that would be > persistently mounted? Where? A nested mount at /boot/grub? I'm not > liking that at all. Even Windows and macOS have saner and simpler to > understand booting methods than this. On this front maybe, but Windows' boot sequence is insane in it's own way (fun fact, if you have the Windows 8/8.1/10 boot-loader set up to multi-boot and want it to boot to something other than the default, it has to essentially _reboot the machine_ to actually boot that alternative entry).