superseded: [PATCH docs] bootloaders: add secure boot shim example

[Maximiliano Sandoval <m.sandoval@proxmox.com>]

Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com> writes:

> On Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:14:43 +0200
> Maximiliano Sandoval <m.sandoval@proxmox.com> wrote:
>
>> Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Thanks for addressing this so quickly!
>> >
>> > On Thu,  2 Jul 2026 10:57:41 +0200
>> > Maximiliano Sandoval <m.sandoval@proxmox.com> 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 <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Maximiliano Sandoval <m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> [..]
>> >>  
>> > 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

It is probably clear enough in v2. I will not mention the BootCurrent
for now since the documentation claims twice that "if the following boot
entry exists then surely you are booting into it" already. This would
require a bigger rewrite anyways.

Superseded-by: https://lore.proxmox.com/all/20260702093215.84124-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com/T/#u

-- 
Maximiliano