Slackware on UEFI
 

I just bought a Acer Aspire M5 481t-6617 ultrabook and I cant stand this win8 bullshit, so my first option is my desktop distro (slack)..

I could not find any information on the model itself about drivers on the linux kernel and Im not sure if the stuff the comes with it will work properly on slack (and his vanilla(?) kernel), keyboard backlights, webcam, dvd drive, the wierd keyboard, the touchpad... but I dont care, I'll deal with that later..

Now on the bios I saw that there is UEFI and it is enabled, so Im thinking only desabling it and putting on legacy boot would do the trick for me? should I try to run slack under uefi?
I found this http://docs.slackware.com/howtos:sla..._uefi_hardware but to be honest, Im scared of trying..

Anyone can tell me their experiences with the uefi thing and theres a way to know for sure the if features on the ubook will work ?

ps: sorry for being a noob

The features are all likely to work fine. If you have Windows 8 and want to keep it, start by hitting (windows key) + X, select the disk management program, and resize the windows drive to make some free space for the Slackware installation. Boot the x86_64 Slackware install disc under the legacy boot mode and with Secure Boot turned off (probably you'll want to leave it off anyway). The installer handles GPT fine, so make your partitions using cgdisk. If you made a swap partition, run mkswap on it before running setup, and then proceed to install as usual. Skip the LILO installation.

Last step is probably the tricky one, but not too bad. It might be easier to do from the installed system than from the installer since you'll have network access there. Leave the machine in legacy boot mode for now, reboot the install disc, and use it to boot the installed system. Then, find the EFI boot partition. This is a smallish FAT partition with an EFI directory that contains a Boot and Microsoft directory. Make a slackware directory in there, and put your kernel (and initrd if you use one) in it. Download the elilo sources, and install the prebuilt 64 bit EFI elilo binary in /efi/slackware/. elilo.efi is a good name to give it. Last, you need an elilo.conf config file. The syntax is similar to lilo.conf. Here's an example I'm using here (still giving a few errors yet, but it works):

Now you can put the machine back in UEFI mode (without Secure Boot). To boot Linux, you'll need to use UEFI to add a menu selection that runs elilo.efi. Alternately, most UEFI implementations will allow you to boot from a file, in which case just browse the EFI partition to find elilo.efi and run it. When elilo boots, you might need to hit tab and type slackware to get it to go.

That's what I've got so far. Hope it helps.

This is a good news!

A good point for Slackware.

thats awesome volkerdi, thank you !

I'll try it out on the weekend, need to do some research on how to find the EFI boot partition but this looks like its gonna be way easier than I thought...

Still dont think some of the features will work tho..
Anyway, much appreciated !

I will note here luz...it may not be so easy. The SecureBoot can be disabled and still prevent it from booting to a CD.

In most cases it means looking up the manufacturer's info on the specific make and model and find out if the BIOS can be changed to allow CD boots or if you have to re-flash the bios to something that will allow it.

I've already seen this problem a few times. It isn't fun..

Doing a bare metal install the slackware64-14.0 dvd booted and installed automagically on an AsRock Z77 Extreme4 without any modifications to UEFI. Then I simple made a efi partition as PV describes and it was easy-peasy from there.

John

Really? I didn't think any UEFI implementations could boot an ISO9660 or UDF disc (at least not by accessing those filesystems). I'm using Tianocore booted from a USB stick to emulate UEFI though (so far, anyway... hoping to see prices on machines that don't suck come down a little). Discs I've seen that can boot on either BIOS or UEFI are crazy hacks that have a hidden FAT EFI partition on them and both MBR and GPT partition tables. I'm still not sure that we'll go to that extreme. I'd be happy to get a working USB installer image, but I'm not sure how well that's going to work without some other kind of trick. GPT expects a secondary table at the end of the drive, but probably a bootable USB image isn't going to be the same size as whatever stick it is written to.

Funny story. On the UEFI I'm testing with, until the kernel loads the KMS video driver and initializes the framebuffer console, there's no video. So when my tests began, I was running blind. I spent a couple of days trying to boot an installation from a GPT stick with an EFI partition, the huge kernel, and elilo. Every time it would hang, and since there wasn't any video yet I was left to guess why. First I thought the elilo.conf had a bug somewhere, then considered that maybe the huge kernel was too big (ran into that with LILO a few years back). I could get the huge kernel to boot the installer, and could get generic+initrd to boot the installation. I booted the installer (which still doesn't have the video support) and typing with no video tried to mount the root partition on /mnt, and run "touch /mnt/tmp/kilroy" just to prove I'd been there. When I checked on the system, it wasn't there.

That's when it occured to me that the huge kernel was probably giving /dev/sda to the USB stick. I booted the installed system again with the huge kernel but this time pulled the stick out as soon as the kernel loaded, and the system booted fine that time. :) Probably time to move the USB modules out of the huge kernel... or maybe even get rid of that thing, finally.

Should we consider this sentence as an RFC? If yes I'd personally be happy with only generic kernels, as long as the drivers for the FS proposed by the installer for / are built-in.
Of course assuming that auto-loading of the needed modules works. This is true for my laptop but I must admit that this is a very small sample of your users base ;)

Is this something anyone would be interested in contributing to a 'kickstarter' style project for? I'd happily kick some money in to buy Pat his choice of UEFI machine, if it means that the laptop I buy next year will install Slackware 14.1 that much easier..

Thanks (really!), but so far it's working here to load UEFI from a stick. I think that will get things to where people out there can do some testing on machines with UEFI on the motherboard. Besides, I suspect that public hatred of Windows 8 will result in a glut of cheap used machines on eBay before too long. :D

I need to be careful... my offhand comments have a tendency lately to be interpreted as RFCs. ;)

IOW, a wink of our BDFL (which could take the form of an old tweet, for instance) can trigger an earthquake (kind of a butterfly effect).

I heard a rumour that Pat's dropping the huge kernel? Can anyone enlighten me?

cheers,

Member Response
 

Hi,

I think eguh kernel is now the default. :)

Here we used to call that parler en verlan.

Mais c'est un peu passé de mode ;)

Reference

Pat
I submit to your more advanced Knowledge, HOWEVER
When I built my new system
AsRock Z77 Extreme4 MB
Kingston 120GB SSD
2 TB HD
32 GB ram
used DVD Player

I plugged the system in and after a few seconds a slackware 13.37 dvd started to boot. Here the used dvd I installed had a disk it. I quickly swapped the disk for 64-14.0 and went through a normal install including lilo. Prior to setup using gdisk I made sda1 an efi partition mounted at /boot/efi, sda2 mounted at /, sda3 mounted at /home, sda4 swap. Then did a standard full install accepting all defaults including installing lilo.
System booted from lilo fine.
To get UEFI working I first had to format /boot/efi as fat32 then find and install the (Intel I Believe) Shellx64.efi onto my /boot/efi partition. I also found and installed Dell's efibootmgr. You need not even install this just copy it to your /boot/efi partition it is completely self contained so is elilo.efi. Also copy vmlinuz-huge-3.2.29 to /boot/efi/bzImage.efi
Now the good part took a while to figure out
Boot the system press [DELETE] or whatever gets you into the UEFI manager screen
On mine I had to go to the BOOT page on the manager screen and select boot the Shellx64.efi remember we just put this in our /boot/efi partition. Whole bunch of shit flys by and finally you will get a prompt
at the prompt type
fs0:> bzImage.efi root = /dev/sda2 ro ( it could also be fs1 or even fs2)
this will boot your kernel in UEFI mode
once in efi mode I followed the slackdocs instructions on installing elilo.efi and elilo.conf
Then type /boot/efi/efibootmgr -c
this will create an UEFI boot point called Linux at /dev/sda1 which will launch elilo.efi
On next boot hit [DELETE] go to boot menu and select "Linux" as the default boot image.
And Bob's your uncle. Every reboot after this will be Slackware
Sorry no help for you Windows guys.

Installing UEFI was the most fun I've had since my original Slackware install and on top of that I get to help you. GREAT DAY
John

EDIT: the initial bzImage.efi copied to /boot/efi was the huge kernel. After installing elilo.efi you can boot anything you put in elilo.conf.
Sorry my notes are not very good

Ah, that explains it. I was talking about booting a disc while in UEFI mode. UEFI in legacy boot mode (which yours was or LILO wouldn't have worked) should be able to boot our ISOs fine.

I can say it does. I just got an new MoBO (to me) the other day, an ASUS M5A97LE R2.0. It has that UEFI bios. My Slackware 14 booted on it in the legacy mode (I had other troubles but *NONE* were to do with the UEFI) just fine.

Just out of curiosity, does it really matter to the user whether you use UEFI or legacy mode to boot the system?

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything. Nor am I suggesting that development stop on a permanent working solution as I'm sure at some point manufacturers will stop putting legacy mode in. Just wondering if you lose some functionality by installing and using legacy mode.

Dan

You could have a look to the links I posted here.

Sometimes I am not very good at communications so here is a working example
My efi partition is /dev/sda1 formatted "mkdosfs -F 32" and mounted at /boot/efi
note bzImage is the huge kernel from the 14.0 dvd
with lilo installed in the gpt "protected mbr" and an error in the above the UEFI firmware will default to a mbr boot. This way you have a working os to fix your problem. Without lilo installed in the protective mbr you get a blank screen to work from.
Which would you rather have?
Pretty interesting that the kernel can be loaded and run from sda while sdb has the root OS as in my rescue and build installs.
This is posted in the hope it will help someone. This UEFI stuff is not really complicated even thought most of the literature seems to make it appear that way. IMHO elilo is simpler than lilo.
thanks
john

It only matters if you got Windows 8 preinstalled, have no media to reinstall it in legacy mode, and would like to keep it to dual boot. Otherwise, if the machine supports legacy mode, that's probably the better way to go at this point. I've heard that some video drivers rely on BIOS calls to set things up and are not accelerated when the OS is booted under UEFI, and there are likely to still be other bugs lurking.

How does one test their video card/driver? On my other (older, non-UEFI) MoBo, with my nvidia gt-520 and the nvidia driver from nvidia, with 'gears' I would get 6000 fps.

I just did 'gears' on this new mobo (UEFI), the same card and driver and only get 59 fps. :(

I can at least tell you that "gears" has not been a good benchmark for quite some time (if it ever was). What it returns is usually the same as the vertical refresh rate.

I was thinking this very same thing this morning. It is less risky [since it doesn't need to be installed to the MBR] and is certainly easier to tinker with.

What ruins it for me is this 'secure boot' thing. I'm not sure that we should be supporting it, given the amount of power it hands certain vendors. I'd rather disable it. I want to be in control of my hardware.

The question I have is: How did we let it get to this point?

Thanks for the answers. They were all informative. I should have pointed out that I don't dual boot any of my computers. My PC and laptop run Slackware only, my wife's laptop runs XP. If I find I absolutely have to do something in Windows I borrow the wife's.

Any plans on adding something automated to the installer?

Yes. This is just information for the people who want to brick their Samsung laptops now.

Linux Foundation Secure Boot System Released
 

http://blog.hansenpartnership.com/linux-foundation-secure-boot-system-released

small video demo: http://youtu.be/1fNhQYRIjD8

So what it is is actually the Microsoft Secure Boot System provided by MS to the LF. It may work but it's still unacceptable IMO.

I believe it is just signed by Microsoft and not written by them. I could be wrong though.

Yes, but still, we shouldn't be supporting it.

We should be fighting it.

Member Response
 

Hi,
Why???

So you like the fact that Microsoft controls the keys to your hardware???

I have nothing against UEFI. In fact, I prefer the flexibility of it over the old way of doing things. The problem is with "secure boot".

We should be fighting "secure boot" because it is thinly veiled fascism.

Because the still incomplete gains of free thought and free knowledge, including that aspect which we call free software, are far too precious to simply willy-nilly surrender the keys of the kingdom back to the original gatekeeper!

I for one will not even consider it!

I agree.

You asked in an earlier post IIRC, "How have we come to this?".

"We" have not come to this - this was handed to us by the same malevolent corporate interests that some of us have fought so hard to escape for the past 30+ years!

We must recognize it for what it is quickly or we won't be able to have this conversation in the near future!

Member Response
 

Hi,
Microsoft does not control my present hardware in any way. 'Secure Boot' protocol(subset) is a implementation of the 'UEFI' protocol.

Do not buy any hardware that you feel does not meet your needs or requirements. You are not required to purchase a piece of hardware with Win/8 or for that fact any hardware that goes against your belief. Research before you buy. I do agree that 'UEFI' is necessary for future hardware needs since 'BIOS' has been hacked or patched to service the newer hardware for far too long. It is about time something like 'UEFI' is implemented. As to Win/8 logo hardware 'secure boot', you should be able to change/disable 'secure boot' then choose legacy BIOS and do a install without it.

This vehement attitude against Microsoft is old and childish. Microsoft answers to investors and must turn a profit. I agree Microsoft has made some poor venture choices and actions against other companies. Apple has locked the OS, Jobs was a dirty player yet he is put up on a pedestal. People forget the problems between Jobs and Gates over the user interface; mouse to be exact.

No one forces anyone to buy a 'Secure Boot' machine!

Member Response
 

Hi,
Fine with me! Your choice. Microsoft happens to be a successful corporation.

No one is asking anyone to surrender anything. You are relating open source to a capitalistic venture. Free enterprise to me is just as important as your;Microsoft, IBM and loads of other big companies do support 'UEFI. Microsoft happens to implement 'Secure Boot' and everyone goes as you say 'willy-nilly'. To me that's really smart for Microsoft wanting to 'Secure boot' hardware to protect the whole system, not just part. Will I buy a Win/8 logo hardware? Probably. Will I run Win/8? No, I prefer to work at all levels of my OS. Will I be able to run in that fashion? Yes, I will be sure to select hardware that will allow me too before I make any purchase.

Yes. Should be able to.

For someone from the US, you certainly seem to be complacent in losing your freedom.
It's not against Microsoft alone. It's against anyone and anything that supports "secure boot".
If we don't fight it now, we may not have a choice in the near future.

With Secure Boot, system compromises will occur when holes are found in signed binaries.
Before Secure Boot, system compromises occurred when holes were found in unsigned binaries.

I'm not yet convinced that the security situation has improved. It's great for marketing, though.

Given that Microsoft require the hardware vendors to implement "secure boot" in order to be Win8 certified, I think you will struggle to find hardware that operates in the manner you want.

Member Response
 

Hi,

Whenever you wish to certify Win/8 the means to disable secure boot must be allowed for the certification process.

I am not giving up any freedoms nor complacent by choosing to allow free enterprise and markets to work. Where there are needs there will be suppliers for the populace.

'Anti-whatever' is getting old to me and to bias the situation with FUD just creates more biased FUD. Get the facts: Secure boot or UEFI Home

Market will decide whether to support 'UEFI' protocol with subset 'Secure Boot'. As to the set: 'Secure boot' protocol from Microsoft that too will be decided by the market. Not by people who shout about conspiracies! You are free to make a choice or not!

I enjoyed this thread more when it was about Slackware and UEFI in practice rather than another political debate.

Member Response
 

Hi,
I really think 'UEFI' is long over due. Either rewrite BIOS or use something along the lines of 'UEFI' to provide the means to secure the system and provide the means to implement new hardware designs.

I totally agree with the latter since from day one someone has always found a work around to get into a system. Everything is dependent on marketing. :)

There's not much more to discuss about it. ELILO solves the problem quickly and easily, and was recently added to Slackware-current.

The thread had nowhere else to go...

You have too much faith in the market's capacity to make intelligent decisions.

You know as well as I do that most people don't know about "secure boot" and nor do they care.

The dumb majority will buy it... And where will that leave us in 10 years' time?

As for me, I'm telling anyone and everyone to avoid Windows 8 at any cost.

So don't buy anything that comes with Windows 8 pre-installed.

Your confidence in the market is just not something I share. It is important to keep in mind that M$ is not simply carried along on the whims of the market - they expend great effort and much money to drive that market the way they want it to go - for better (for them) or worse (for the rest of us, usually). Anything as signifigant as controlling the boot process certainly was well analyzed for their own benefit within their board chambers, long before the rest of us knew about it.

And the harsh reality is that "we" (users) are no more free to make a choice in these matters than the extent of the choices "they" (market leaders) offer us. Much like the charade of democracy - you can only choose among the candidates offered. (OK, maybe this is a political rant...)

It is not necessary to invoke a conspiracy theory to see that this is how it works! On the other hand, I don't know what word better describes non-disclosed decisions and agreements (i.e., secret collusion) among businessmen with the intent of influencing (i.e. manipulating) the markets to their own ends... and if you don't think that happens daily then I envy your innocent world view, but it won't last!

But I agree with you that there needs to be a new incarnation of the BIOS layer. Whether UEFI is a good choice, I really can't say. Although I am inclined to take the word of those of you in this forum who have had early experience with it and seem to think it is OK in some ways... it is obviously what we will have to work with in future.

But when it comes to current implementations of it, and with Secure Boot in particular... we are not just talking about a replacement for BIOS!

Now back to the market strategy of M$ (aka "conspiracy theory")... here is what I really think, and what I really fear is happening...

Two general concepts are of highest importance to the development and spread of free software as we have known it:

* Ability to re-purpose, re-cycle hardware for low cost access to development platforms
* Ability to easily share the resulting products with others, for furhter development or simple use

The very origin of Linux, for example, was the idea to create a Unix-like operating system to run on i386 hardware... that is, to re-purpose existing 386 boxes to become Unix-like platforms. Very few people ran out and bought new 386 systems to install their new Unix-like operating system on! The reality is that access to disused hardware, and ability to put it to a new use has been critical for many aspects of free software's development, not just Linux.

Then, when you have your new SkyNet AI prototype semi-working, you have to be able to share it with others easily, or there is little point in doing it! That means that others must be able to easily install and run it on whatever hardware they have available, their own PC more often than not.

Now look at the effect of UEFI/Secure boot (or any form of hardware lock-down) on these two activities.

All the disused hardware in the world is useless if you cannot boot it without some one else's permission! And if that someone sees you as a threat to their profits... And no need to repeat how you can just turn it off, I have heard that many times.

But if it really is all so simple to turn off, then why all the discussion? Why this thread? Why not just read the easy to use instructions and get on with it? If you can simply ignore it, then why does Red Hat or the EFF or anyone else have to ask M$ to sign their bloody keys! That is an outrage!

Even if it were true that you can take it or leave it, yes or no, it still puts all future hardware one boolean bit away from NOT being able to turn it off, and it puts M$ in control of that particular bit... doesn't that disturb anyone?

In a worst case, I think landfills will soon be receiving tons of perfectly functional used hardware, simply because it cannot be repurposed any more. And I think that is a major point of Secure boot - to drain the swamp as it were. Used hardware will no longer compete with the market for "new improved" hardware, and developers will have to buy their hardware license just like everyone else... treadmill 2.0.

But I think more importantly is the second aspect - sharing your free software. Developers will find ways around the block, usually, but all those other potential users will have a seriously more difficult time of it!

Look back over the past 20 years with Linux, how much effort has gone into making it easy for non-techie types to install this or that Linux distro. That has been a major focus of development from the kernel to your distro of choice.

But it appears that with UEFI/Secure boot, you will no longer be able tell your buddies, "Pop in the DVD and run the installer, then boot into Linux!". I think this is going to be the insurmountable barrier for many. It will certainly be an impediment to the spread of free software, and therefore free knowledge and free ideas - which is what we are really talking about.

And it is an artificial barrier designed with that thought in mind - IMHO.

+1

It seems too many here in the USA keep forgetting why this was said:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin

That may not have been meant for software and computer hardware, but it holds true in this situation just the same.

+1
The problem isn't about uefi, but about who controls it. It is also about the future of general purpose computing. One must always look at these things, not simply as a singular event, but as a trend, as something moving in a certain direction.
Do we want our pcs and laptops to end up like the smartphones - with the software locked in?
Isn't it now a criminal act in the USA to replace or change the software in a smartphone?
The faith in the market is naïve. The market will only cater to a minority at a price, and this higher price will be dampen demand.
The reason why monopolies and cartels are in principle forbidden in a free market is because they distort and destroy the free market. Indeed, that is the intention of a cartel. Microsoft should have been broken up, like AT&T, because of its dominating position, but it used its huge political influence to protect itself.

I believe that statement. Microsoft is as a hidden ( or not so hidden ) monoply. The mojority of the worlds pc's are preloaded with M$, blindsiding anyone that doesn't know or care about anything other than being like everyone else and having a functional computer. People need to have choices at all time. M$ has and will continue to be the market leader as so we let it. The majority will always choose it because thats pretty much the only thing offered. What can be done about this? Apple is almost the only other option and that's even more proprietarized and expensive. The free software community needs to make a plan on how to shift the gears more in its favor and hit M$ and Apple with a checkmate!

This is the bigger issue. The major players are already laps ahead in the race. Why can't we make a plan to level the playing field and catch up to or even surpass those who have already overthrown the *nix community. Something can be done its just a matter of implementing it and spreading it like wildfire to the community for further developement and higher politcal gain.

I type this while hacking away at my iphone 4. Go figure!