mirror of https://github.com/pbatard/rufus.git
252759eb91
* GRUB 2.0 maintainer think they're doing a fine job, even when there are CRITICAL SECURITY FIXES that should warrant an immediate out of bound release, and instead consider that waiting MONTHS or YEARS to release anything is not a big deal at all. * Ergo, distros, such as Ubuntu, start to pick whatever security patches they see fit, since they can simply not RELY on the upstream project to produce security releases in a timely manner. One such patch is: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2021-03/msg00012.html * But since there is no new GRUB release per se, they still call their GRUB version, onto which they applied patches that have come into existence more than 2 years after the actual 2.04 release, "GRUB 2.04". * Obviously, since GRUB 2.04 + literally hundreds of cherry picked patches does deviate a lot from the last release, THINGS BREAK IN SPECTACULAR FASHION, such as the recently released Ubuntu 21.04 failing to boot with the error: grub_register_command_lockdown not found. * Oh, and of course, regardless of all the above, if you ask anyone, they'll tell you that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the GRUB release process (even if they should long have released 2.05, 2.05-1 and 2.05-2, were their maintainer ready to acknowledge that delaying releases DOES CREATES MAJOR ISSUES DOWSTREAM, as many people REPEATEDLY pointed to them on the GRUB mailing list) or with the Ubuntu GRUB versioning process (that really shouldn't be calling their version of GRUB "grub-2.04" but instead something like "grub-2.04_ubuntu"). Oh no siree! Instead, the problem must all be with Rufus and its maintainer, who should either spend their lives pre-emptively figuring which breaking patch every other distro applied out there, or limit media creation to DD mode, like any "sensible" person would do, since DD mode is the ultimate panacea (Narrator: "It wasn't"). * So, once again, a massive thanks to all the people who have been involved in the current GRUB 2.0 shit show, whose DIRECT result is to make end users' lives miserable, while GRUB maintainers are hell bent on continuing to pretend that everything's just peachy and are busy patting themselves on the back on account that "Fedora recently dropped more than 100 of the custom patches they had to apply to their GRUB fork" (sic). Nothing to see here, it's just GRUB maintainer's Jedi business as usual. Besides, who the hell cares about Windows users trying to transition to Linux in a friendly manner anyway. I mean, as long as something doesn't affect existing Linux users, it isn't a REAL problem, right?... |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| boot.img | ||
| core.img | ||
| grub2_version.h | ||
| readme.txt | ||
readme.txt
This directory contains the Grub 2.0 boot records that are used by Rufus
* boot.img and core.img were created from:
https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/grub/grub-2.04.tar.xz
with the following 3 extra patches applied:
- https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2020-07/msg00016.html
- https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2020-07/msg00017.html
- https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2021-03/msg00012.html
on a Debian 10.x x64 system using the commands:
./autogen.sh
./configure --disable-nls --enable-boot-time
make -j6
cd grub-core
../grub-mkimage -v -O i386-pc -d. -p\(hd0,msdos1\)/boot/grub biosdisk part_msdos fat ntfs exfat -o core.img
* boot.img has been modified to nop the jump @ 0x66 as per grub2's setup.c comments:
/* If DEST_DRIVE is a hard disk, enable the workaround, which is
for buggy BIOSes which don't pass boot drive correctly. Instead,
they pass 0x00 or 0x01 even when booted from 0x80. */
* Note that, for convenience reasons, the content of boot.img is *not* the one that
Rufus processes when writing the MBR.
Instead, the byte array from src/ms-sys/inc/mbr_grub2.h (whose content is identical)
is what Rufus uses. If you modify these files, be mindful that you may also need
to update the array in mbr_grub2.h.
* For details, see src/format.c, src/msys/br.c and src/msys/inc/mbr_grub2.h.