git: 2c26d77d989a - main - Remove /boot/efi from mtree, missed in 0b7472b3d8d2.

[Emmanuel Vadot]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 06:56:11 -0800 (PST)
"Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd at gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote:

> > On 3/3/21 10:38 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:13 AM Nathan Whitehorn 
> > > <nwhitehorn at freebsd.org <mailto:nwhitehorn at freebsd.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     On 3/3/21 9:05 AM, Brandon Bergren wrote:
> > >     > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021, at 6:53 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > >     >> What am I missing here?? One place I am being told this is run in
> > >     >> an environment that may not even be an EFI booted system, and in
> > >     >> another place it is being used as a test if something is mounted
> > >     >> on it, which should only be true on an EFI booted system.
> > >     > That the script in question is a generic script that runs as
> > >     part of bsdinstall on every platform and has to be universal.
> > >     >
> > >     > The actual *problem* here is that
> > >     usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts/bootconfig has a default case that is
> > >     >? ? ? ? ? ? ? *)? ? ? ? ? die "Unsupported arch $(uname -m) for
> > >     UEFI install"
> > >     >
> > >     > which then causes the main script to bail out, leaving the
> > >     system in a half-installed state.
> > >     >
> > >     > If that had just been an exit 0 this would have never been a
> > >     problem, I suppose.
> > >     >
> > >     > Before the original change that broke this, there was a check
> > >     that the script was not running on powerpc or mips platforms
> > >     before running the efi bits, but this got taken out.
> > >     >
> > >
> > >     Well, incidentally. The bootconfig script needs to know if there
> > >     is an
> > >     ESP it should configure, but the signalling mechanism (the
> > >     presence of
> > >     the ESP mount point) was being broken by mtree making that directory
> > >     unconditionally even on systems that don't use EFI. So then
> > >     bootconfig
> > >     tried to set it up, but failed later on, because there was no EFI
> > >     loader
> > >     to set up. The mtree change makes the ESP mount point only exist on
> > >     systems with an ESP.
> > >
> > >
> > > So you made a unilateral change, without discussion of the bigger 
> > > design, to something without even asking the original person who made 
> > > the change to mtree about it for what sounds like an obscure case in 
> > > the installer that could be solved in a different way? It's trivial 
> > > enough to look at the boot method sysctl and skip the EFI update if we 
> > > didn't boot EFI (and if by change that's not on all systems, it's easy 
> > > enough to add it on all systems). I have no notion about why that 
> > > wasn't considered, at least, before jumping in and taking people by 
> > > surprise.
> 
> I still do not understand why machdep.bootmethod=EFI was rejected?
> Is this value not present on ALL platforms that boot in EFI mode?
> if exist(machdep.bootmethod) && machdep.bootmethod=EFI seems to
> me to be the best and valid way to make this decision.  If that
> has issues working on a platform we need to fix that issue and not
> do all this other stuff.

 We need to install and create the efi dir even if the installer is
booted in CSM mode, so a user can switch to full uefi mode after and
still can boot the FreeBSD that was installed. (The same thing must be
done for bios boot code).

> > >
> > > Next time, talk to people first. That's the whole point of having 
> > > review tools, mailing list and git blame.
> > >
> > > Warner
> > 
> > This method of testing was in the original review here posted on Feb. 
> > 23: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D28897
> > 
> > The description of the test procedure you're objecting to was even in 
> > the summary! Then we had a discussion by email about the change to mtree 
> > on the committers list on Feb. 28 to resolve a bug affecting PowerPC in 
> > the patch reviewed and approved by you. I then waited several days and 
> > had a long thread for several days on the mailing list about the 
> > approach. coming up with this short patch -- again, as a bug fix to a 
> > reviewed approach.
> > 
> > We can change the logic -- that's fine! But, to paraphrase, the reason 
> > we have reviews is so people like you can look at the review and note 
> > these kinds of problems when they are reviewed, not after the commit 
> > goes in. There's a significant amount of whiplash when you do get 
> > patches reviewed, approved, and then the person who reviewed and 
> > approved them accuses you of "taking people by surprise".
> > 
> > The installer *does* mount the partition in advance, so checking whether 
> > there is a mounted file system is a perfectly reasonable test to do. We 
> > could also check fstab. I would like to understand what is actually 
> > wrong here first, though. Especially after this misfire -- which is 
> > problematic for reasons that are still not clear to me, since there are 
> > a number of standard directories in hier(7) not in mtree -- I want to 
> > make sure we actually do have consensus about what is changing and why.
> 
> These *should* be fixed.  ALL directories that are part of a finished
> FreeBSD system should be present both in hier.7 and in the mtree files,
> deviating from that should only be allowed if there is some really
> really grand reasons.  If the reason is "architecture foo does not
> have directory /bar/zap" one could and should create an arch specific
> mtree file that covers these, having these mkdir's (prefer to see
> all those changed to install -d's) scattered around all over, IMHO
> creates maintance and inconsistency issues.
> 
> > -Nathan
> -- 
> Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org


-- 
Emmanuel Vadot <manu at bidouilliste.com> <manu at FreeBSD.org>