Apologies once again for the time it's taking to get back to you, so
much to do. I'll try to get focussed on responding to all of your
messages now/next...
The fix for this bug report has been merged now since your response.
The piece of code modified to add `--prefix=/boot/grub` lived within a
condition of `"${LB_FIRST_BOOTLOADER}" = "grub-pc"`, so does not apply
to the default situation of using syslinux at least...
Furthermore the code concerns generation of a 'grub_eltorito' file,
which is then later used in a xorriso only when grub-pc is selected for
use.
So it seems to me that this only affects grub-pc...
It's been quite some time since I last researched the details of ISOs
and bootloaders and such. So I cannot say with complete confidence that
you're mistaken in being concerned about this breaking secure boot.
Especially since testing is tricky since I don't think my VM emulates
it, so would be a pain to double check, considering how busy I am.
If you're still concerned, would you happen to please have a little
spare time to double check?
Thanks,
Lyndon.
On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 01:03 +0200, adrian15sgd wrote:
> I suspect this would break Secure Boot support but it's only a guess.
>
> El 8/4/20 a las 2:23, jnq...@gmail.com escribió:
> > update: I've just tried adding --prefix=/boot/grub to the grub-
> > mkimage
> > command in binary_iso (which should really be done in binary_grub-
> > pc)
> > that generates the core_img file that becomes part of
> > grub_eltorito,
> > and success!
> >
> > So now that I know how fundamentally to fix the problems, I'll
> > follow
> > up soon with patches.
> >
