Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

On 16 September 2015 at 00:39, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote: > > > Can you try > > http://yasuoka.net/~yasuoka/BOOTX64.EFI > > this and "machine test" on boot prompt? It will show > > 0 blocksize=512 > > like this. Disk number and blocksize. > Yup - that's what I get:

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

Toby Slight [tobysli...@gmail.com] wrote: > On 15 September 2015 at 18:09, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > > > > > Sounds like a bug in the brand new EFI boot blocks which affects your uefi > > firmware and not some others. It seems all of your tests are pointing in > > the > > same

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

On 15 September 2015 at 18:09, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > > Sounds like a bug in the brand new EFI boot blocks which affects your uefi > firmware and not some others. It seems all of your tests are pointing in > the > same direction, they are not a result of differences in the

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:35:16 +0100 Toby Slight wrote: > On 15 September 2015 at 18:09, Chris Cappuccio wrote: >> Sounds like a bug in the brand new EFI boot blocks which affects your uefi >> firmware and not some others. It seems all of your tests are

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

Am 15. September 2015 15:09:43 MESZ, schrieb Toby Slight : >The plot thickens... > >So I finally managed a successful UEFI install (I won't tell you how >many >chickens I had to sacrifice...) with the latest snapshots (15/09/2015), >and >following

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

Toby Slight [tobysli...@gmail.com] wrote: > > Finally, is this kind of testing and information at all useful to the devs, > or am I just creating unnecessary noise on the list, and should I just wait > until it's a little further down the line? I've got a fair bit of free time > in the next week

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

On 15 September 2015 at 14:09, Toby Slight wrote: > The plot thickens... > > So I finally managed a successful UEFI install (I won't tell you how many > chickens I had to sacrifice...) with the latest snapshots (15/09/2015), and > following

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

The plot thickens... So I finally managed a successful UEFI install (I won't tell you how many chickens I had to sacrifice...) with the latest snapshots (15/09/2015), and following http://blog.jasper.la/openbsd-uefi-bootloader-howto/. This time I opted to keep it simple and not attempt my usual

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > Gerald Hanuer [ghanuer497...@gmail.com] wrote: >> Hello misc@, >> >> Native UEFI goes in tree. >> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs=144115942223734=2 >> . >> Great work

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

Joel Rees writes: [...] > (Not that I particularly want to, but the US tax office seems to > expect everyone who is required to report certain things to be able to > run a current version of the Adobe PDF viewer. Or, if there is a > community supported pdf viewer that

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

There are no "one size fits all" OS's; why would we need one? That's why we have networks! Richard Thornton

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

OK, so I finally managed to boot the 12th's snapshot on an EFI only T430. Weirdly enough one time it just worked, but when I tried again I got the same results as the 9th's snapshot installer. It seems that sometime the bootblocks get loaded, sometimes not, 9 times out of 10 I get

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

On 13 September 2015 at 18:34, Toby Slight wrote: > OK, so I finally managed to boot the 12th's snapshot on an EFI only T430. > Weirdly enough one time it just worked, but when I tried again I got the > same results as the 9th's snapshot installer. > > It seems that

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

Hi, Thank you for your report. Can you provide a result of machine memory machine disk on boot prompt? >>> Also, is it normal that the resolution is a tiny cropped box in >>> the middle of the screen? The resolution is limitted to 100x31 or 80x25 since efifb was too slow at least on my

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

On 14 September 2015 at 00:04, YASUOKA Masahiko wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for your report. Can you provide a result of > Sure thing :-) > > machine memory > http://i.imgur.com/HDzrApt.jpg > machine disk > http://i.imgur.com/WJLuNKJ.jpg > on boot prompt? >

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

On 13 September 2015 at 19:26, Toby Slight wrote: > On 13 September 2015 at 18:34, Toby Slight wrote: > >> OK, so I finally managed to boot the 12th's snapshot on an EFI only T430. >> Weirdly enough one time it just worked, but when I tried again I

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

On 10 September 2015 at 13:09, Toby Slight wrote: > Thought I'd try giving this a whirl on my T430 (which thankfully support > CSM legacy mode). The miniroot58.fs snapshot from today (10 September) gets > to the bootloader when UEFI is enabled and CSM is disabled in the

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

Thought I'd try giving this a whirl on my T430 (which thankfully support CSM legacy mode). The miniroot58.fs snapshot from today (10 September) gets to the bootloader when UEFI is enabled and CSM is disabled in the BIOS, however it hangs when trying to boot the kernel, as shown in the attached

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

Toby Slight [tobysli...@gmail.com] wrote: > On 10 September 2015 at 13:09, Toby Slight wrote: > > > Thought I'd try giving this a whirl on my T430 (which thankfully support > > CSM legacy mode). The miniroot58.fs snapshot from today (10 September) gets > > to the bootloader

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

I get similar behavior (EFI boot blocks run, boot loader 3.29 shows, but kernel fails to finish loading and reboots) on an Intel NUC DN2820FYKH using the latest snapshot (9/9) with install58.fs. I tried both bsd.rd and bsd for good measure. Installing via CSM works as expected. Firing up the same

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

Chris Cappuccio [ch...@nmedia.net] wrote: > b. Format the UEFI partition on softraid disks: >newfs_msdos /dev/sd0i >newfs_msdos /dev/sd1i > c. Get BOOTX64.EFI and BOOTIA32.EFI: >ftp ftp.openbsd.org >cd pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/amd64/ >lcd /tmp >get

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

com> Cc : misc@openbsd.org Objet : Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support Gerald Hanuer [ghanuer497...@gmail.com] wrote: > Hello misc@, > > Native UEFI goes in tree. > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs=144115942223734=2 > <http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs=144115942223734=2>. >

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 11:22:48AM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > Since the purpose of Secure Boot provide little to no benefit to users > (in fact quite the opposite), the question becomes why? > For paranoid softraid crypto users who are concerned about a modified

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

Gerald Hanuer [ghanuer497...@gmail.com] wrote: > Hello misc@, > > Native UEFI goes in tree. > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs=144115942223734=2 > . > Great work all. > > So what might the future hold for UEFI Secure Boot. > So, the tree

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 11:22:48AM -0700, Chris Cappuccio wrote: > Since the purpose of Secure Boot provide little to no benefit to users (in > fact > quite the opposite), the question becomes why? UEFI does not always imply Secure Boot. There are modern systems which do not feature legacy

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 18:22:48, Chris Cappuccio [ch...@nmedia.net] wrote: > So, the tree won't develop support for this standard until UEFI > systems require it. Alternately, if someone writes it ahead of > time, maybe that will be useful. (Useful in making it easier to > boot OpenBSD

Re: Native EFI Bootloader Support

Romain FABBRI [romain.fab...@alienconsulting.net] wrote: > Could help some people like me who have an asus t100 which only accept UEFI > boot. (scarry) > Except, your T100 can also have secure boot disabled. OpenBSD UEFI support is coming together right now, just for your T100.

Native EFI Bootloader Support

Hello misc@, Native UEFI goes in tree. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs=144115942223734=2 . Great work all. So what might the future hold for UEFI Secure Boot. Regards, Gerald Hanuer