On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Steve Langasek <steve.langa...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:06:51PM -0000, Jeff Lane wrote: >> > Is /efi/ubuntu/grubx64.efi on your EFI System Partition definitely the >> > Canonical-signed image from grub-efi-amd64-signed? > >> I presume so? dpkg says it is:They look the same to me: > >> ubuntu@xwing:/boot/efi/EFI/ubuntu$ dpkg -S grubx64.efi >> grub-efi-amd64-signed: /usr/lib/grub/x86_64-efi-signed/grubx64.efi.signed > > That doesn't establish that /usr/lib/grub/x86_64-efi-signed/grubx64.efi.signed > and /boot/efi/EFI/ubuntu/grubx64.efi match. Can you please verify that they > do?
Doh!... indeed. ubuntu@xwing:~$ md5sum /boot/efi/EFI/ubuntu/grubx64.efi /usr/lib/grub/x86_64-efi-signed/grubx64.efi.signed 474a3900382e54c2129626683f12f3b5 /boot/efi/EFI/ubuntu/grubx64.efi 474a3900382e54c2129626683f12f3b5 /usr/lib/grub/x86_64-efi-signed/grubx64.efi.signed ubuntu@xwing:~$ diff -s /boot/efi/EFI/ubuntu/grubx64.efi /usr/lib/grub/x86_64-efi-signed/grubx64.efi.signed Files /boot/efi/EFI/ubuntu/grubx64.efi and /usr/lib/grub/x86_64-efi-signed/grubx64.efi.signed are identical >> > Which version of Ubuntu's grub are you booting via pxe? > >> ubuntu@xwing:/boot/efi/EFI/ubuntu$ dpkg -l |grep grub|awk '{print $2": >> "$3}' >> grub-common: 2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.16 >> grub-efi-amd64: 2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.16 >> grub-efi-amd64-bin: 2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.16 >> grub-efi-amd64-signed: 1.66.16+2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.16 >> grub-pc: 2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.16 >> grub-pc-bin: 2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.16 >> grub2-common: 2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.16 > >> That is what is installed on the node. > > Sorry, I was asking about the other end of this: what version of > grubnetx64.efi is being served by maas? I have no idea. Andres? As far as I can tell, it's serving up a copy of grubx64.efi out of /var/lib/maas/boot-resources/current which has files dated Feb 5. bladernr@critical-maas:/var/lib/maas/boot-resources/current/bootloader/uefi/amd64$ ll total 2328 drwxr-xr-x 2 maas maas 4096 Feb 22 17:34 ./ drwxr-xr-x 4 maas maas 4096 Feb 22 17:34 ../ -rw-r--r-- 2 maas maas 1196736 Feb 5 07:29 bootx64.efi -rw-r--r-- 2 maas maas 1173368 Feb 5 07:29 grubx64.efi That all comes from maas.io. I presume its one of these? http://images.maas.io/ephemeral-v3/daily/streams/v1/com.ubuntu.maas:daily:1 :bootloader-download.json > > (But it is also good to confirm what version of grub is installed on the > node's disk.) > >> So I re-enabled SecureBoot and removed all NICs from the boot order. I >> added in the HDD (since this is an EFI boot, the HDD is an entry called >> "Ubuntu" under "OTHER" in the boot order) > >> This fails to boot, I get an error from the system: > >> Error 1962: No operating system found. Boot sequence will automatically >> repeat. > >> Because I have no NICs listed in the boot order, this just churns as it >> keeps retrying the HDD entry. > >> So next, I went back and disabled SecureBoot once more. It immediately >> booted straight from the HDD. > >> I also just tried a USB install with Secure Boot enabled. I was able to >> install bionic from USB, but it too fails to boot with the same error. > >> To be fair at this point, given that this does work elsewhere, I'm >> suspicious that this is possibly an issue with my server. > > Agreed. Something is wrong with the boot configuration of this node, which > is independent of the question of whether we have a viable workaround for > the netboot chainloading bug. I'm going to see if I can update the firmware on this node and maybe that will make a difference. Otherwise, we'll need to try that C240 in the lab. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1711203 Title: Deployments fail when Secure Boot enabled To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/curtin/+bug/1711203/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs