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

Secure Boot Violation after updating BIOS to the latest version #519

Open
0rzech opened this issue Dec 15, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Secure Boot Violation after updating BIOS to the latest version #519

0rzech opened this issue Dec 15, 2023 · 5 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working f39 Related to Fedora 39

Comments

@0rzech
Copy link

0rzech commented Dec 15, 2023

Describe the bug
Secure Boot Violation after updating BIOS to the latest version.

To Reproduce
Please describe the steps needed to reproduce the bug:

  1. Update BIOS to the latest version.
  2. Boot the computer.
  3. Motherboard complains that the signature is invalid.

Expected behavior
Fedora signature should be valid.

Screenshots
Secure Boot Violation

OS version:

● fedora:fedora/39/x86_64/silverblue
                  Version: 39.20231215.1 (2023-12-15T18:09:18Z)
               BaseCommit: 69c25b9951d821ba85a3fdca4ecf2afeb4317b28ce94d70034a23e31bbd97b3a
             GPGSignature: Valid signature by E8F23996F23218640CB44CBE75CF5AC418B8E74C

Additional context
The firmware is ROG CROSSHAIR VIII HERO(WI-FI) BIOS 4702 (with AGESA ComboV2PI 1.2.0.B). AFAIK, the new BIOS resets fTPM state on update. I was stuck on dbx 77 but now fwupdmgr says it's up to date.

The system booted fine before updating and resetting BIOS. Now secure boot has to be disabled in order to boot the system and Gnome reports that the Kernel Lockdown is disabled in addition to UEFI Secure Boot.

@0rzech 0rzech added the bug Something isn't working label Dec 15, 2023
@travier travier added the f39 Related to Fedora 39 label Dec 16, 2023
@travier
Copy link
Member

travier commented Dec 16, 2023

You likely need to update the bootloader manually. See #355

@0rzech
Copy link
Author

0rzech commented Dec 16, 2023

Tkanks, @travier ! Is there somewhere a conclusive list of steps on how to do it?

@travier
Copy link
Member

travier commented Dec 16, 2023

Unfortunately there isn't. You can try #120 (comment) (with an updated package), but it's at your own risk. Make sure to mount/remount /boot & /boot/efi as read-write before.

Hopefully we get #120 in soon and you will be able to use that to update the bootloader.

@0rzech
Copy link
Author

0rzech commented Dec 16, 2023

Thanks, @travier !

You can try #120 (comment) (with an updated package), but it's at your own risk.

Do you mean latest shim from Fedora repository?

Make sure to mount/remount /boot & /boot/efi as read-write before.

As in "unmount both partitions and mount them rw"?

Does rpm -i validate package signatures, or is there another way to do it during package reinstallation?

Maybe I could just extract the necessary files from shim rpm and copy them to the partition, is that possible?

@0rzech
Copy link
Author

0rzech commented Dec 17, 2023

Do you mean latest shim from Fedora repository?

Ok, I have updated shim and updated grub2.

As in "unmount both partitions and mount them rw"?

@travier I didn't have to do that, because they are rw all the time - perhaps it's because I have separate /boot partition. Is rw on it wrong?

Does rpm -i validate package signatures, or is there another way to do it during package reinstallation?

To answer myself: it doesn't. I did rpm -K <package_file> and rpm -Kv <package_file> to verify package signatures.

Maybe I could just extract the necessary files from shim rpm and copy them to the partition, is that possible?

Copying shim files from /usr/lib/ostree-boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/ to /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/ didn't help, so probably neither would copying files extracted from the rpm package.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working f39 Related to Fedora 39
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants