From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 686E41FF135 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:11:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B0CD3213A0; Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:11:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 11:11:07 +0200 From: Stoiko Ivanov To: Maximiliano Sandoval Subject: Re: [PATCH docs] bootloaders: add secure boot shim example Message-ID: <20260702111107.78156f30@rosa.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260702085758.48099-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> References: <20260702085758.48099-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.1 (GTK 3.24.49; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1782983461595 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: 3RLGGNRRB5XBCXVHJAMQOLQFY3NOARQL X-Message-ID-Hash: 3RLGGNRRB5XBCXVHJAMQOLQFY3NOARQL X-MailFrom: s.ivanov@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thanks for addressing this so quickly! On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 10:57:41 +0200 Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: > On a system that was migrated from systemd-boot to grub2 with secure > boot, the entry grubx64.efi would be missing and the systemd-bootx64.efi > entry would be present. If the shimx64.efi entry is not mentioned, then > the docs would incorrectly imply that the system uses systemd-boot as a > bootloader. > > We add the shimx64.efi entry to the docs to fill this gap. > > Suggested-by: Stoiko Ivanov > Signed-off-by: Maximiliano Sandoval > --- > > Notes: > On my machine: > > $ efibootmgr -v > Boot0000* Linux Boot Manager > HD(2,GPT,[..])/File(\EFI\systemd\systemd-bootx64.efi) [..] > [..] > Boot0002* proxmox > HD(2,GPT,[..])/File(\EFI\proxmox\shimx64.efi) [..] > > system-booting.adoc | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/system-booting.adoc b/system-booting.adoc > index da87697..c3de158 100644 > --- a/system-booting.adoc > +++ b/system-booting.adoc > @@ -209,6 +209,13 @@ used in UEFI mode. > Boot0005* proxmox [...] File(\EFI\proxmox\grubx64.efi) > ---- > > +If the output contains a line that looks similar to the following, GRUB is > +used in UEFI mode with Secure Boot enabled. I'd rather phrase that as: If the active boot entry points to `\EFI\proxmox\shimx64.efi`, then secure boot is enabled. (It's not set in stone that grub is the only boot-loader that can be loaded from a signed shim - at some point in the future we might have systemd-boot in that list as well, and prefer that for new installs) alternatively we will need to rework the docs then anyways - so it's just a suggestion - what do you think? > + > +---- > +Boot0005* proxmox [...] File(\EFI\proxmox\shimx64.efi) > +---- > + > If the output contains a line similar to the following, `systemd-boot` is used. > > ----