From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34E3F1FF135 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:16:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 038D3213A8; Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:16:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 11:16:17 +0200 From: Stoiko Ivanov To: Maximiliano Sandoval Subject: Re: [PATCH docs] bootloaders: add secure boot shim example Message-ID: <20260702111617.5e25fc5d@rosa.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20260702085758.48099-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <20260702111107.78156f30@rosa.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: 1782983771815 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: VUWHOSJWNAA24BS26VEAIECBKBJ4LG4D X-Message-ID-Hash: VUWHOSJWNAA24BS26VEAIECBKBJ4LG4D 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: On Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:14:43 +0200 Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: > Stoiko Ivanov writes: > > > 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 > >> --- > >> [..] > >> > > 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? > > Sounds good to me however, we do not explain which entry is the "active > boot entry". Do I assume correctly it should be the one listed in > 'BootCurrent'? afaik - yes