-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
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
shim-x64-15.8-2 update causes secureboot test failures #1694
Comments
The new shim-15.8-2 seems to not work for secure boot: coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1694
pin PR for now: coreos/fedora-coreos-config#2904 |
as the signing process makes shim builds 'special', we just do them for one release then manually tag them to the others. that's ongoing. see https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12018 for details. I haven't tried doing an SB boot with the new one yet, will try it in a bit. |
Works fine for me on F40:
also, the Beta 1.7 candidate everything netinst has the same shim, and it boots successfully on my test box with SB enabled. |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
The new shim-15.8-2 seems to not work for secure boot: coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1694
The new shim-15.8-2 seems to not work for secure boot: coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1694
The new shim-15.8-2 seems to not work for secure boot: coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1694
The new shim-15.8-2 seems to not work for secure boot: coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1694
Can you boot into the working one and attach /sys/firmware/efi/efivars/db-d719b2cb-3d3a-4596-a3bc-dad00e67656f here? |
okay, so... (assuming you're using libvirt), edit the xml description of your vm:
|
Do you know what grub version is installed? |
It might be possible to use |
attached at: db-d719b2cb-3d3a-4596-a3bc-dad00e67656f.gz |
|
Can you tar up |
here: mok-variables.tar.gz |
|
Oh, I see the problem. I'll have another build for you to test in a few minutes. |
@vathpela how bad of a problem is it? bad enough to warrant a fresh f40 beta compose? |
fbx64/mmx64 got signed with the old set of certs we don't trust any more. So yeah, I think so. |
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=115176363 should have them signed correctly. |
ah, great :/ that's the magic fallback path thing, right? so fallback path recovery for deployed systems is what's broken? and that can affect things like cloud environments where we just expect to boot from fallback path, I guess... |
how do we make a bodhi update show up for that? |
since 15.8-2 got pushed stable for F38 I guess Peter needs to create a new one. I've filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270355 as a blocker candidate. It would be great if you could add any details or corrections there, @vathpela . |
No, not worth re-doing the beta. |
The new shim-15.6-3 fixes the secureboot issue. Fixes coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1694
The new shim-15.6-3 fixes the secureboot issue. Fixes coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1694
This one fixes the secureboot issue documented in coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1694
This one fixes the secureboot issue documented in coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1694
This one fixes the secureboot issue documented in coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1694
All streams now have the new 15.8-3 shim. Just in case it wasn't clear: this problem was caught in CI and never entered any releases on production streams. |
i.e.
cosa kola run basic --qemu-firmware=uefi-secure
will fail. When I look at the logs all I see is:What is weird is this update was submitted and got to stable in F38 but not F39. It's in F38 and rawhide and nowhere else:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: