This bug was fixed in the package grub2 - 2.02~beta3-4ubuntu2.1 --------------- grub2 (2.02~beta3-4ubuntu2.1) zesty; urgency=medium
* debian/patches/install_signed.patch: don't install fb$arch.efi; it breaks "removable" installs where files are all installed to /EFI/BOOT; and it also doesn't belong in the /EFI/ubuntu path for the default case. Fallback install simply needs more work and isn't ready for SRU. (LP: #1684341) * debian/postinst.in: clean up fb$arch.efi. -- Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre <cypher...@ubuntu.com> Wed, 24 May 2017 16:25:17 -0400 ** Changed in: grub2 (Ubuntu Zesty) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released ** Changed in: grub2 (Ubuntu Yakkety) Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of नेपाली भाषा समायोजकहरुको समूह, which is subscribed to Xenial. Matching subscriptions: Ubuntu 16.04 Bugs https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1684341 Title: EFI fallback binary should not be installed in --removable mode Status in cloud-images: New Status in grub2 package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Status in grub2 source package in Trusty: Confirmed Status in grub2 source package in Xenial: Fix Released Status in grub2 source package in Yakkety: Fix Released Status in grub2 source package in Zesty: Fix Released Bug description: [Impact] Building some images depending on calling grub-install --removable still installs fbx64.efi; which we don't want on removable media. [Test case] On an EFI system, run 'grub-install --removable --target=x86_64-efi'. Observe whether fbx64.efi is installed to /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT. It should not. [Regression potential] If any system is depending on running grub-install with --removable, and on fbx64.efi being installed in /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT; this would cause this assumption to fail -- leading to incorrect fallback behavior when BootEntries are not present on a system. Failures to boot with "System BootOrder not found" errors should be considered a possible regression. Any missing files in /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT or /boot/efi/EFI/ubuntu after install should be considered a potential regression of this update. ---- The patch I did to fix names for the new naming of shim binaries included the addition of fbx64.efi; but it was done wrong: fbx64.efi should only exist under \EFI\BOOT, it's not required in the "removable" path; except if we're trying to force installing to the removable path *too*. In other words: 1) we normally don't want /EFI/ubuntu/fbx64.efi to exist; and a) on a desktop or server, we want /EFI/BOOT/fbx64.efi to exist (ie. installs without --removable, and with --force-extra-removable used when grub-install was called); b) on removable media, we do not want /EFI/BOOT/fbx64.efi to exist (ie. when grub-installed is called with --removable). Furthermore, the (a) case is probably not the typical case we want to run grub-install with. Calls to grub-install with --force-extra- removable probably should be limited to shim-signed's postinst. In any case, let's move the fbx64.efi installation step to also_install_removable() in grub-installer to avoid installing it when it shouldn't be. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-images/+bug/1684341/+subscriptions _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~group.of.nepali.translators Post to : group.of.nepali.translators@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~group.of.nepali.translators More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp