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 CD4471FF135 for ; Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:36:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9AE42213A5; Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:36:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: Stoiko Ivanov Subject: superseded: [PATCH docs] bootloaders: add secure boot shim example In-Reply-To: <20260702111617.5e25fc5d@rosa.proxmox.com> (Stoiko Ivanov's message of "Thu, 2 Jul 2026 11:16:17 +0200") References: <20260702085758.48099-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <20260702111107.78156f30@rosa.proxmox.com> <20260702111617.5e25fc5d@rosa.proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:36:25 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1782984979556 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: ZZROT7XZ7PEBVJLEEJRT5QLY5TBD3RPQ X-Message-ID-Hash: ZZROT7XZ7PEBVJLEEJRT5QLY5TBD3RPQ X-MailFrom: m.sandoval@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: Stoiko Ivanov writes: > 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 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