On 07/12/2016 01:28 PM, Jiri Srain wrote:
On 12.7.2016 13:02, Ancor Gonzalez Sosa wrote:
On 07/12/2016 06:41 AM, Michael Chang wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 02:27:44PM +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
Unfortunately it's unreliable regardless using gpt boot (ie bios_grub) partition or not. Although we created early systemd serivce and hibernation hook to clear that (boot once)flag in lieu of bootloader, it's still unreliable if booting fails before reaching that level. That's what we understood initially. That's why we always propose a separate /boot when LVM is used. But then we got this comment from Michael:
with GPT partition table if there is no GRUB partition in a partitions-based proposal only requires a new GRUB partition in a LVM-based proposal requires /boot and a GRUB partitions
Why not also creating new GRUB partition for LVM so that /boot can be omitted ?
Wouldn't the same problem with hibernation apply to this scenario? I mean, I understood from Michael that /boot with LVM can never be omitted if you want hibernation to work reliably, but here it looks like he suggests to omit it.
If we need a /boot partition with LVM to have a reliable working grub-once, we have a real problem with btrfs and rollback. In server, hibernate is not much required, so can the proposal be done as server or desktop basis ?
This sounds like we need a further, deep discussion with our bootloader experts on the different architectures... The workaround may be allocating (writable) environment block on the raw gpt bios_grub partition, there's seems no better way out. (Unless native write support in grub is implemented for all filesystems, lvm and mdadm, but I don't see any sign that it will happen). If that approach is used, can we always drop /boot in favor of a bios_grub partition? Any reason to not use always that workaround?
Last but not least, just to verify that I had understood the scenarios, confirm if these statements are true or false. They assume the above-mentioned workaround is not used (since I'm not sure if I understood the use-case for it).
In x86 using GPT - Using UEFI Do we need any special partition in addition to the EFI partition if using uEFI, no matter what the other options (as written below, plain / LVM) are?
* Plain partitions -> no separate /boot needed. No bios_grub needed * LVM + If we DON'T care about hibernation -> -> no separate /boot needed. bios_grub needed. + If we DO care about hibernation -> -> separate /boot needed. bios_grub not needed (we have /boot) - Using legacy boot * Plain partitions -> no separate /boot needed. bios_grub needed * LVM + If we DON'T care about hibernation -> -> no separate /boot needed. bios_grub needed. + If we DO care about hibernation -> -> separate /boot needed. bios_grub not needed (we have /boot) I only have one problem with the scenarios when /boot is needed: Full system encryption, which will not cover the /boot partition outside LVM. And, additionally, rollback will not work reliably if /boot is out of its control.
Is there really no reliable way to avoid separate /boot in such cases?
I have just had a very productive conversation with Michael and actually there is a way. We would need to adapt the way we manage Grub2, but it's doable. Quoting that conversation (slightly reordered): <mchang> Yes, it's trying to place place /boot/grub2/grubenv from file system to a raw system sector then it can be written directly by bootloader <mchang> We did a similar hack for btrfs .. the environment block is "chained" from file system block to btrfs's reserved area for bootloader. <mchang> But we need to make sure we don't step on each other's toe as the bios_grub is shared with bootloader image <ancorgs> but that's something that is also under our control, isn't it? <mchang> Yes, I suppose bios_grub is under our control .. as we already use it to embed the image and the unused space can be used for grub environment block <ancorgs> For both definitions of "control": the partition is under our control (not shared) and we control the different software pieces (grub2, yast2-booloader...) He also gave me some useful information about PPC (we will need to confirm that, but it's already something to work with). So I will come up with a new version of the specification incorporating Chang's input for everybody to review. Cheers. -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-storage+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-storage+owner@opensuse.org