New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
F39/F40: Fails to boot on with "vmlinuz has invalid signature" #543
Comments
I've hit the same issue and I've disabled Secure Boot for now. It's likely due to the bootloader being too old. bootupd should land in the image after the release and will then let people update their bootloader. Or maybe we should include bootupd in Fedora 39 now so that people can update their bootloader before upgrading to Fedora 40. |
Oh Oh. SB39 (stable) just updated (no rebase) to kernel 6.8.4 showing the very same issue.
breaks boot, showing
(Thinkpad T495 using |
And people have to be told what to do. I got a |
Pinging Universal Blue folks as it's likely going to impact them soon: @castrojo @noelmiller @EyeCantCU @KyleGospo |
Unfortunately, now that the kernel has landed in an update, we can not add bootupd to a future F39 build as you won't be able to boot it to get the fix. Overlaying bootupd via So we have coreos/bootupd#635 as an option (that I have not tested yet) to create container images with bootupd based on an older commit with the previous kernel. Or we document how to manually fix this until bootupd finally lands in Atomic Desktops. Unfortunately it will not fully be in Fedora 40 by default yet. See: https://gitlab.com/fedora/ostree/sig/-/issues/1 |
Can't the update to the kernel package be reverted in the same commit that bootupd is added? |
No unfortunately, for Fedora Atomic Desktops, we always take the latest RPMs from the repos. |
@travier I'm watching this one with interest as my Silverblue image is now one week old. If I understand it correctly, the only solution at the moment is to disable Secure Boot? And not even upgrading to Fedora 40 will solve it in the near future? |
The workaround for this issue is going to be commands that do what bootupd does but manually unfortunately. This is mostly doing a copy from I have not tested any of this so I'm not providing ready made commands and everything is at your own risk. Please make backups and make sure that you are confortable rescuing a broken system before trying thing out. Help with testing in VMs or on real hardware is welcomed. I recommend disabling Secure Boot in the meantime until this is fixed. |
Warning: Do at your own risk, only lightly tested Here is the set of commands I've just used to update my (x86_64) EFI booted system successfully:
Once reboot is successful, you can remove the backup copies:
Edit: Updated to add 32bits EFI binaries as well. |
Thanks @travier ! Just did this on my machine and it worked. I was also able to reenable Secure Boot. As a positive side effect, it also looks like the UEFI dbx update was applied. That had been blocked for a while. |
OK sorry yes, this is an embarrassing problem. @travier and I had a chat, a few things here:
Alternatively, we can document how to run bootupd from a privileged container. (In fact, running it from the existing Longer term yes, the technical debt here is high and makes coreos/bootupd#454 important to do and just turn on automatic updates, or at least automatic updates when they're needed. |
@travier I've noticed that the affected Thinkpad T495 was missing Looking into other systems I see the mentioned UPDATE: upgraded two other desktop systems successfully (SB39->SB40 with enabled SecureBoot) using the test steps. |
I tested these steeps on my workstation and my Thinkpad T480. I managed to get secure boot on both devices. On the desktop I had to use fwupdmgr to update the UEFI dbx. |
Has the same issue reported here (also includes a kernel bug report though I am unsure how helpful that is), so, but this question AFAIK remains unanswered:
So does updating fix it? I mean I can boot into an old working Fedora 39 version. Alternatively, if I need to disable Secure Boot temporarily, can I just do so – upgrade to Fedora 40 and boot successfully, afterwards? (Edit: tested, does not work, I can only boot with SecureBoot disabled) Also, would this possibly be a candidate for a common issue if it prevents upgrading to Fedora 40? |
It's a good idea to make it a common issue. It's basically impossible to fix automatically right now for F39 users updating as the new kernel already landed in Fedora 39. We'll try to get bootupd support to a sufficiently good shape to have a small set of commands to enter manually but in the meantime, the commands in #543 (comment) are the best that we have. |
Okay then, I have created a draft for this here: Unfortunately I miss the technical details etc. to properly document it. So feel free to edit it please. |
FYI I can confirm the workaround posted worked:
|
Thereafter, I get the following: After
At second try:
|
@fbruetting seems like a different issue, OSTree updates should not have anything to do with the bootloader update. Maybe ask at the Fedora discussions forum for help? |
Describe the bug
Trying to rebase an existing SB39 to SB40 fails to boot showing
vmlinuz-6.8.1-300.fc40.x86.x64 has invalid signature. you need to load the kernel first
on an Thinkpad T495. I was not able to reproduce the issue on my desktop systems.coming from deployment:
going for:
What I've tried so far
rpm-ostree initramfs --enable
+ rebasecleanup -r
(removing all other deployments) + rebasefedora:fedora/40/x86_64/testing/silverblue
instead, same error except error message points to vmlinuz-6.8.2To Reproduce
rpm-ostree rebase fedora:fedora/40/x86_64/silverblue
systemctl reboot
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: