On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 07:01:44PM +0100, Tobias Heider wrote:
> + if (verbose)
This block could use braces.
> + fprintf(stderr, "%s %s to %s\n",
> + (nowrite ? "would copy" : "copying"),
> + src, dst);
> +
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 07:01:44PM +0100, Tobias Heider wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:09:25PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:42:37PM +0100, Tobias Heider wrote:
> > > Here is a more cleaned up version of the previous diff. I moved all the
> > > firmware logic to a
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:09:25PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:42:37PM +0100, Tobias Heider wrote:
> > Here is a more cleaned up version of the previous diff. I moved all the
> > firmware logic to a new write_firmware() function. This should be easy
> > to extend if w
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:42:37PM +0100, Tobias Heider wrote:
> Here is a more cleaned up version of the previous diff. I moved all the
> firmware logic to a new write_firmware() function. This should be easy
> to extend if we decide to ship more firmware this way.
This seems more tidy.
>
> T
t; > > Here is the promised last diff we need to enable Apple M*
> > > > > > bootloader updates.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With this, installboot(8) will pick up apple-boot.bin from the
> > > > > > firmware
> > &
Kettenis wrote:
> > > > > Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 18:26:36 +0100
> > > > > From: Tobias Heider
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is the promised last diff we need to enable Apple M* bootloader
> > > > > updates.
> > > >
> From: Tobias Heider
> > > >
> > > > Here is the promised last diff we need to enable Apple M* bootloader
> > > > updates.
> > > >
> > > > With this, installboot(8) will pick up apple-boot.bin from the firmware
> > > >
eed to enable Apple M* bootloader
> > > updates.
> > >
> > > With this, installboot(8) will pick up apple-boot.bin from the firmware
> > > directory and writes it to $ESP/m1n1/boot.bin if both file and target
> > > directory exist.
> > > Crea
On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 06:33:51PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 18:26:36 +0100
> > From: Tobias Heider
> >
> > Here is the promised last diff we need to enable Apple M* bootloader
> > updates.
> >
> > With this, installbo
> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 18:26:36 +0100
> From: Tobias Heider
>
> Here is the promised last diff we need to enable Apple M* bootloader updates.
>
> With this, installboot(8) will pick up apple-boot.bin from the firmware
> directory and writes it to $ESP/m1n1/boot.bin if
Here is the promised last diff we need to enable Apple M* bootloader updates.
With this, installboot(8) will pick up apple-boot.bin from the firmware
directory and writes it to $ESP/m1n1/boot.bin if both file and target
directory exist.
Creation of the m1n1/ directory is expected to happen during
On sparc64, installboot does not deal with any file system; its -p is a NOOP
and the old sys/arch/sparc64/installboot/ never prepared a file system,
either, according to CVS history.
Remove this single misleading mention alltogether and rely on the now
consistently cross-linked MI installboot(8
Lovely.
Visa Hankala wrote:
> Use installboot(8) in armv7 install.md.
>
> OK?
>
> Index: distrib/armv7/ramdisk/install.md
> ===
> RCS file: src/distrib/armv7/ramdisk/install.md,v
> retrieving revision
> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:20:03 +
> From: Visa Hankala
>
> Use installboot(8) in armv7 install.md.
>
> OK?
ok kettenis@
> Index: distrib/armv7/ramdisk/install.md
> ===
> RCS file: src/distrib
Use installboot(8) in armv7 install.md.
OK?
Index: distrib/armv7/ramdisk/install.md
===
RCS file: src/distrib/armv7/ramdisk/install.md,v
retrieving revision 1.51
diff -u -p -r1.51 install.md
--- distrib/armv7/ramdisk/install.md7
Visa Hankala wrote:
> > I'd prefer to keep the names in the .c file, especially if the result
> > is that they're scatter though the Makefile instead of in a single
> > block.
>
> I agree. Putting definitions in a Makefile also sort of hides them.
This is already an ugly Makefile, and I suppose
On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 03:43:00PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 13:58:21 +
> > From: Visa Hankala
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:23:56PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > Miod Vallat wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Index: usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c
> > > >
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 13:58:21 +
> From: Visa Hankala
>
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:23:56PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Miod Vallat wrote:
> >
> > > > Index: usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c
> > > > ===
> > > > R
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:23:56PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Miod Vallat wrote:
>
> > > Index: usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c
> > > ===
> > > RCS file: src/usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c,v
> > > retrieving rev
Miod Vallat wrote:
> > Index: usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c
> > ===
> > RCS file: src/usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.11
> > diff -u -p -r1.11 armv7_installboot.c
> > --- usr.sbin/insta
> Index: usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c
> ===
> RCS file: src/usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.11
> diff -u -p -r1.11 armv7_installboot.c
> --- usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c 20 Ju
That's a good step.
Visa Hankala wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 10:55:03AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe we should rename the file to efi_installboot.c and/or rearrange
> > > the code slightly such that is becomes more obvious that the name of
> > > the
> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:16:03 +
> From: Visa Hankala
>
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 10:55:03AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe we should rename the file to efi_installboot.c and/or rearrange
> > > the code slightly such that is becomes more obvious that
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 10:55:03AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
> > Maybe we should rename the file to efi_installboot.c and/or rearrange
> > the code slightly such that is becomes more obvious that the name of
> > the file is indeed the only difference.
>
> And obviously
Mark Kettenis wrote:
> So yes, it would be good if visa@ could add the startup.sh creation
> code to installboot for arm64, armv7 and riscv64.
That would help.
The non-efi setups will remain pretty stupid, lots of special cases.
The long term idea is to have all that the installboot(8)
> > I think a new file is better, if this addition is made, rather than
> > > hiding it
> > > behind a #ifdef inside a .if file
> >
> > I disagree. Apart from the name of the bootloader file, the code is
> > identical and this is by design!
> >
>
echo bootriscv64.efi > /mnt/mnt/efi/boot/startup.nsh
OK let's call it
write "boot%s.efi\n" to efi/boot/startup.nsh
On all architectures. Always. Where %s is a rather strange substitution.
The unfinished goal is for installboot(8) to do everything on all
t; identical and this is by design!
>
> Maybe we should rename the file to efi_installboot.c and/or rearrange
> the code slightly such that is becomes more obvious that the name of
> the file is indeed the only difference.
The code cannot be the same, because installboot is supposed to
> From: "Theo de Raadt"
> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 09:28:59 -0700
>
> A few comments.
>
> I think this approach is increasingly fragile, because a change for one
> architecture will affect others.
>
> > -.elif ${MACHINE} == "armv7" || ${MACHINE} == "arm64"
> > +.elif ${MACHINE} == "armv7" || ${MA
A few comments.
I think this approach is increasingly fragile, because a change for one
architecture will affect others.
> -.elif ${MACHINE} == "armv7" || ${MACHINE} == "arm64"
> +.elif ${MACHINE} == "armv7" || ${MACHINE} == "arm64" || ${MACHINE} ==
> "riscv64"
> SRCS += armv7_installboot.c
Ho
This makes the installer use installboot(8) on riscv64.
OK?
Index: riscv64/ramdisk/install.md
===
RCS file: src/distrib/riscv64/ramdisk/install.md,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.3 install.md
--- riscv64/ramdisk/install.md
Diff below makes installboot(8) work on arm64. It reuses the armv7
code just like amd64 reuses the i386 code.
ok?
Index: usr.sbin/installboot/Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/installboot/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.19
Since the armv7 installer now creates an msdos filesystem for the
bootloader, here's an updated installboot(8) diff. Besides FAT32 LBA
partitions (created by the installer), it also recognizes FAT16 LBA
and EFI System partitions. Not sure whether we actually need to
support FAT16, but
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 06:56:30PM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> The deleted statement is not true for i386 (probably "no longer" true)
> and similar statements are in the BUGS section (rather than the main
> body) of the installboot.8 man pages for other archs. The statements
ode (`boot> boot -s`), your disk
> will be mounted read only on startup. Well, to be accurate, only the
> root partition will be mounted, and it will be read-only.
>
> On the hand, if you use another way to drop the securelevel, such as
> booting multi-user normally and then
> for i386, it seems this "bug" got fixed somewhere along the lines
> > but the man page was not updated to reflect reality.
> >
>
> just to check: installboot(8) says:
>
> Note that you must be in single-user mode or have your
> kernel in insecure mode
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 06:56:30PM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> The deleted statement is not true for i386 (probably "no longer" true)
> and similar statements are in the BUGS section (rather than the main
> body) of the installboot.8 man pages for other archs. The statements
The deleted statement is not true for i386 (probably "no longer" true)
and similar statements are in the BUGS section (rather than the main
body) of the installboot.8 man pages for other archs. The statements
about securelevel requirements in the other archs are often somewhat
different
Hi !
After investigating a bit further the issue, I believe that the
appended patch makes installboot(8) behave correctly. I removed
extended partition numbering, since in would always print '1'. Last
hunk is merely a typo fix.
Comments are welcome.
Cheers,
hyjial.
Index: ins
39 matches
Mail list logo
