Bug 1866107
| Summary: | Following 1861977, the MOK list is inaccessible with "Couldn't get UEFI MokListRT" visible in the logs | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | Reporter: | Kyle Walker <kwalker> |
| Component: | shim | Assignee: | Bootloader engineering team <bootloader-eng-team> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Release Test Team <release-test-team-automation> |
| Severity: | urgent | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | urgent | ||
| Version: | 8.2 | CC: | ajb, berend, chref, fedoraproject, fmartine, gregory.m.mckenzie, kbost, manuel.wolfshant, mckweb, miabbott, mmatsuya, pasteur, peter, phil, ptalbert, rboza89, rmetrich, sbarcomb, toracat, twaugh |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Regression |
| Target Release: | 8.0 | Flags: | pm-rhel:
mirror+
|
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2020-09-23 06:52:02 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Kyle Walker
2020-08-04 21:14:42 UTC
Sorry, downgrading shim-x64 alone is sufficient to restore functionality. on rhel 7.8 I am having a very similar issue where mokutil is not adding keys to the system keyring. I attempted to downgrade shim-x64 and it has mokutils as a dependency. When I downgraded them both, now my machine won't start... ---> Package mokutil.x86_64 0:15-7el7_8 will be a downgrade ---> Package mokutil.x86_64 0:15-8el7_8 will be erased ---> Package shim-x64.x86_64 0:15-7el7_8 will be a downgrade ---> Package shim-x64.x86_64 0:15-8el7_8 will be erased luckily mokutils was set in verbose and the black screen is printing text about mirroring key list and that what I believe is holding it up. Renaud confirmed that this is a duplicate of bug #1877343. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1877343 *** Why is this (original) bug being marked as a duplicate of another (newer) bug? 1877343 should be marked as the duplicate, not this one. Or is it because you don't want the public to have access? If anyone has access to the new bug, please add me to the CC list. Do we need to open a support case to get this fixed? It took 6 weeks to be marked as urgent. Sorry we did some cleanup and didn't realize the BZ was private. It's now public and I added you to CC. Thanks Renaud |