uefi bios needs BOOTMGR

[bradbobak]

Seems my bios is looking for this file. 'BOOTMGR is missing'. Will I be able to boot my uefi bootloader somehow? I've tried copying to a usb (/efi/boot/bootx64.efi) with no luck. Will I be able to test my os on this system somehow? or do I need to look for another motherboard?

[nullplan]

Your BIOS is not looking for this file; BOOTMGR is a Windows thing. So whatever is printing this message is part of the Windows boot process. Do you have a UEFI boot loader for your OS? And do you have a UEFI system partition on your USB stick?

[bradbobak]

Ok, I removed the hard drive and am now just getting a 'not a bootable disk'. I just formatted the stick as fat, made /efi/boot/bootx64.efi, then tried to boot. I am going to google around to see how to make a proper uefi boot usb.

[Octocontrabass]

Is the firmware configured to boot the USB drive in UEFI mode? It may be configured to boot USB drives only in legacy mode, or it may be configured to not boot from USB at all.

[bzt]

I am going to google around to see how to make a proper uefi boot usb.

Try a BOOTBOOT image. They are known to work on USB sticks. If you can boot that, then your UEFI BIOS is configured correctly. If not, then search for CSM mode and disable it. These images were created with my mkbootimg tool. You can also use that with your boot loader, just copy your loader to dist/bootboot.efi, delete mkbootimg/data.c and compile (no dependencies, only make+gcc). After that the newly compiled mkbootimg will create an USB image using your UEFI loader.

Otherwise what happens if you simply rename ESP:EFI\BOOT\BOOTX64.EFI to ESP:BOOTMAGR.EFI?

Cheers,
bzt

[zaval]

Seems my bios is looking for this file. 'BOOTMGR is missing'. Will I be able to boot my uefi bootloader somehow? I've tried copying to a usb (/efi/boot/bootx64.efi) with no luck. Will I be able to test my os on this system somehow? or do I need to look for another motherboard?

Your BIOS is not looking for this file; BOOTMGR is a Windows thing. So whatever is printing this message is part of the Windows boot process. Do you have a UEFI boot loader for your OS?

If he is running in UEFI, it may look for BOOTMGR.EFI, because there is a Load Option, created for it, but somehow, the volume, containing it, is missing. if that were "Windows boot process", the first thing over there, would be BOOTMG.EFI itself, and, of course, it wouldn't print that it is missing.

And do you have a UEFI system partition on your USB stick?

he shouldn't.

To the author, first check, if you are running in an UEFI environment, then you need to check your UEFI Boot Manager menu. go and look at Load/Boot Options, what's there. most probably, BOOTMGR is the only option there and you somehow screwed it, for example removed that disk, or the file itself. that's why it prints that. or, you are running in BIOS and that print is Boot sector code failed to find NT6 loader, that should have been there.

This is how you could load your own loader the easiest way. put your OSL somewhere in the USB stick, like say \efi\bradbobak\myosldr.efi. Break UEFI boot process, by hitting a key (Del?), go to Boot Manager menu and check "load from file" option. it surely should be over there. when you choose it, it will direct you in the file hierarchy, from where, you should find your loader, by looking at the device path - it should contain USB obviously, and, of course, your file path, you can easily recognize. once, you found that, hit enter and that's it. your OSL will be running. the other way, you can do the same from the UEFI shell (with the latter, started from the Boot Manager again). Later, you can add a Load Option for your OSL (manually or programmatically) and set Boot Order to point at your OSL first, if there is such a need.

And yes, write your own OSL, don't use questionable stuff from others. OSL is a part of your OS, it will give you a lot of insights and understanding. besides, UEFI implies, every OS has its own OSL.

[bzt]

And do you have a UEFI system partition on your USB stick?

he shouldn't.

Yes, he must. UEFI looks for boot files on the system partition.

go and look at Load/Boot Options, what's there. most probably, BOOTMGR is the only option there

This could be a good idea, however UEFI Boot Manager should try to load EFI\BOOT\BOOTX64.EFI as a last resort regardless of what's in the Boot Options. But checking if the Boot Options are correct won't hurt.

put your OSL somewhere in the USB stick, like say \efi\bradbobak\myosldr.efi.

How, if the OP doesn't have an UEFI system partition, may I ask?

And yes, write your own OSL, don't use questionable stuff from others.

Have you finished with yours? Let me know when you have. Trying a well-proven UEFI boot loader to test if the environment is configured correctly IS the proper way of action.

Cheers,
bzt

[crosssans]

[...] And yes, write your own OSL, don't use questionable stuff from others. OSL is a part of your OS, it will give you a lot of insights and understanding. besides, UEFI implies, every OS has its own OSL.

I think it's the choice of the developer to use whatever they want as soon as it's convenient for him/her/them. Of course you can create your own boot loader for learning & educational purposes (and also if you find this more convenient to do), but it's very time consuming (you're essentially constructing a bridge from the BIOS/UEFI firmware to your operating system)/error prone (it's just as hard as debugging an operating system) and it's probably not what you would want to do if your main objective is to develop a kernel & operating system (or "coating") in general (but that's just my way of seeing things, I don't prevent people from making whatever project they want & using whatever tool, software, or operating system that suits the best to them )

[zaval]

And do you have a UEFI system partition on your USB stick?

he shouldn't.

Yes, he must. UEFI looks for boot files on the system partition.

No, he shouldn't. UEFI doesn't look for boot files only on system partitions. I showed you an example, illustrated with pictures, I pointed you to the specification part, that tells about what it looks for and how Boot Mechanisms (it's the name of the relevant section) look overall. If you are this dumb to not get it still, don't make advices to others in this respect.

go and look at Load/Boot Options, what's there. most probably, BOOTMGR is the only option there

This could be a good idea, however UEFI Boot Manager should try to load EFI\BOOT\BOOTX64.EFI as a last resort regardless of what's in the Boot Options. But checking if the Boot Options are correct won't hurt.

Optionally may try. on non-removable storages. and may not look at some subset of storages at all (policy, left to the implementation or setting). don't forget this detail. I think, Octacontrabass suspection is correct here, though, - the author doesn't run in UEFI at all.

put your OSL somewhere in the USB stick, like say \efi\bradbobak\myosldr.efi.

How, if the OP doesn't have an UEFI system partition, may I ask?

I showed you how. an ordinary FAT partitioned USB stick will work just fine. I tried it both with real hardrware and emulators. just as described in the spec. YET ONCE, for especially gifted, - UEFI WILL TRY EVERY drive, on which the simple file system protocol has been installed. and these, in turn are ALL FAT12/16/32 volumes discovered, REGARDLESS of the partitioning scheme or them being marked as ESP or not. this is not my opinion - it's written clearly in the specification (Boot Manager and media access sections).

And yes, write your own OSL, don't use questionable stuff from others.

Have you finished with yours? Let me know when you have. Trying a well-proven UEFI boot loader to test if the environment is configured correctly IS the proper way of action.

there is only one "well-proven" thing, when it comes to your bootboot - given how stubborn you are with accepting criticism, pointing to your obvious mistakes with understanding UEFI and thus - awful design desicions (examples - lame choice of forcing the user to use the resort path on non-removable storages, forcing the user always use GPT scheme, even where it's both non-standard and inconvenient (say, 4GB SD card not only doesn't allow using this scheme but also, - it's not needed there! you won't have 128+ partitions over there! using some OS specific stuff like "ramdisk" - a bootloader that tries to be universal, establishes some interfaces/protocols with an OS and not forces some unixy-things on the OS)), one should avoid using bootboot very much. unless he/she begs for having headaches. I'll show, of course, if you so desire.

I think it's the choice of the developer to use whatever they want as soon as it's convenient for him/her/them. Of course you can create your own boot loader for learning & educational purposes (and also if you find this more convenient to do), but it's very time consuming (you're essentially constructing a bridge from the BIOS/UEFI firmware to your operating system)/error prone (it's just as hard as debugging an operating system) and it's probably not what you would want to do if your main objective is to develop a kernel & operating system (or "coating") in general (but that's just my way of seeing things, I don't prevent people from making whatever project they want & using whatever tool, software, or operating system that suits the best to them )

I also think. I also don't prevent. etc. what was your point? we here just exchange thoughts, noone forces anyone to do it some way. my "write your own OSL" was a suggestion. my thought. imo, universal loaders suck, they are an unnecessary layer in the chain, that just adds to boot time and they demand more, than they do. imo, OSL is a part of an OS, it's very OS specific, it would be very well seen if there weren't so much linux clones, of course then they all are "the same". but it's only because most of hobby OSs are just linux parodies. and universal loaders may be needed in the BIOS environment for multibooting, but they become a waste in the UEFI totally. in UEFI, you don't need to have a centralized "loader", that will take care about providing the multiboot capability, that otherwise can be easily cut off, UEFI is so easy with multibooting by the design, that now you may concentrate on creating a part (your OSL) that will only take care about proper loading and overall preparation for exactly your OS, without irrelevant cruft.

[PeterX]

Oh not again! You two folks keep on quarreling about UEFI, ESP and GPT. It's not helping the people who ask questions. I think zaval is wrong but discussing with him does NOT bring a benefit.

Greetings
Peter

[zaval]

Oh not again! You two folks keep on quarreling about UEFI, ESP and GPT. It's not helping the people who ask questions. I think zaval is wrong but discussing with him does NOT bring a benefit.

Greetings
Peter

you "think"? kid, so far, you only showed yourself capable of littering with the garbage as the quoted. lately, this forum has become occupied with clueless and/or bratty teenagers. admit it, that ArgonAquila weepy boy is from your kindergarten? maybe you try cheergirling on tiktok?

[crosssans]

I also think. I also don't prevent. etc. what was your point? we here just exchange thoughts, noone forces anyone to do it some way. my "write your own OSL" was a suggestion. my thought. imo, universal loaders suck, they are an unnecessary layer in the chain, that just adds to boot time and they demand more, than they do. imo, OSL is a part of an OS, it's very OS specific, it would be very well seen if there weren't so much linux clones, of course then they all are "the same". but it's only because most of hobby OSs are just linux parodies. and universal loaders may be needed in the BIOS environment for multibooting, but they become a waste in the UEFI totally. in UEFI, you don't need to have a centralized "loader", that will take care about providing the multiboot capability, that otherwise can be easily cut off, UEFI is so easy with multibooting by the design, that now you may concentrate on creating a part (your OSL) that will only take care about proper loading and overall preparation for exactly your OS, without irrelevant cruft.

Well, the point here was to show you that commenting about one developer's choice is a waste of time & effort unless if it's something that would lead to non maintainability code for example - but in any case this wasn't meant to be insulting of course, it wasn't the intended effect that I wanted to get (sorry if it did :/)
The Multiboot specification (version 1 and 2) have been both made before UEFI came up (and if it did came up before the Multiboot2 specification, UEFI was pretty rare at that point). But that's not it, some computers (such as mine) prevent people from using anything other than Microsoft Windows simply because the manufacturer has been paid to only authorize this operating system to run (which is a bit problematic, not the fact that manufacturers are paid by Microsoft to do that BUT instead being locked/trapped/forced to use one operating system that some developers such as me don't necessarily appreciate, although I did appreciate Windows 7 & 8.1 for their robustness)

I have a laptop that will only run either the Windows Boot Manager EFI binary or `bootx64.efi` and nothing else - this is where GRUB (for example) can come handy. Although my UEFI system doesn't let me choose properly an operating system loader to start, I can just copy the GRUB EFI boot loader to `bootx64.efi` so that I can trick my system and thus I can then have a menu that lets me choose between multiple operating systems (although I stopped using Windows for more than one year now).

So you can't just say that Multibooting on UEFI is useless (or a "waste", to reemploy your words), there are still many use cases up to this day such as (of course) obtaining a proper multibooting menu (because honestly it's very unpractical to manually set the operating system that you want to boot each time you want to switch at startup), get around a lock (or as they call it """""security feature"""" that you can't disable ), choose between multiple installed versions of the Linux kernel (that can be very useful, especially if you're developing a kernel driver for example), etc.

I don't want to start a debate on this since this is not the scope of this topic anyways (and that would totally bury the OP's original question/request), but feel free to PM me if you want to continue - I'll be glad to share my view point

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was about to post my reply but then I saw that you added this answer:

you think? kid, so far, you only showed yourself capable of littering with the garbage as the quoted. lately this forum has become occupied with teenagers. admit it, that ArgonAquila is from your kindergarten? maybe you try cheergirling on tiktok?

I don't know if I should be concerned by this or not, because I am myself a teenager (as I am writing this answer) and I think that not only this is a bit rough towards the concerned person - but what you just said is kind of decadent; being a teenager doesn't mean that you are automagically "stupid" or "ignorant" until being an adult (and if this wasn't intended, then please reconsider your terminology since that's what I implicitly understood from this post).

Debating is good (whether the global ideas are shared or totally different); but if you start judging a person by his/her/their traits, you'll start both discrediting yourself from a serious perspective & put the targeted person on a really bad mood (and that's how a huge war like I saw on one topic starts!). What I want you to understand is that you should be less targeting towards people, if you have shown & proved that someone is wrong but he/she/they think that it's right, then just let that person believe it - I'm pretty sure that you could save time instead of replying to people that are not agreeing with you to work on your projects instead

Anyways, if you don't agree with me then just ignore this entire post or just reply with your own thoughts but I won't answer them (or PM me instead so that this does not pollute this topic as I said earlier!)

[zaval]

I don't know if I should be concerned...

you shouldn't be concerned.

if you are so interested in this, then just scroll up and look to whom I answered and what. then look, who started to "quarrel" and who showed up as a fan girl and when. and what did he/she say. and how it's related to this thread. and how meaningful that was at all? see? this is off-topic. it gets irritating, because it's not the first time, when this person shows up and generates this nonsense as a follow up.

and at the end - you should take my use of the "teenager" word easier, and not pretend you aren't aware of figurative sense. and don't get this offended this easy, esp. if you weren't involved at all. I know it's so popular nowadays to behave like this. offended by this and offended by that. what was unerstandable and normal yet a few years ago, has become almost a taboo. up to the craziness. it's ridiculous. in its primary sense, yes, it means, just youths 10-19 years old incl. in the figurative sense, it may mean a slightly derogatory meaning. intentionally used. deservingly, in this case! the former and latter are different meanings. I cannot believe you don't know about that. I came to this thread and made an on-topic suggestion to the OP. that was all me here. then that crackpot followed up and started his endless trololo on the subject, I've emphasized, am not going to keep on with him. still, he asked me the same questions, I've answered to him not once. then, his fan girl appeared, whose age I don't know, but he/she behaves like he/she is 11. and started to pointing his/her finger at me, how my posts aren't helpful. (his/her are, I guess). and, finally, now I am being teached by a dude, offended by politically incorrect use of the word teenager. isn't it a kindergarten? and btw, if you buy a computer, that is set up this way and it's clearly mentioned in the specification of it, it's not FORCING you, it's your choice. and if you don't like it, blame yourself.

PS. And btw, just looked and noticed, - I didn't just say "teenagers", I've qualified it with "clueless and/or bratty". still didn't help, huh? or, you consider yourself clueless as well? debates of course are good, but look at posts like what I reacted to above or what that Aquila has generated. it's not debates. it's ... how annoying, childish silliness should be called in the world of all offended properly?

[nullplan]

you "think"? kid, so far, you only showed yourself capable of littering with the garbage as the quoted. lately, this forum has become occupied with clueless and/or bratty teenagers. admit it, that ArgonAquila weepy boy is from your kindergarten? maybe you try cheergirling on tiktok?

Funny, in a forum full of teenagers (and those "young at heart" like myself), the only one spewing infantile remarks and being incapable of defending his own position without resorting to such, is yourself. Maybe reflect on that a bit.

[iansjack]

I think the only sensible thing to do is to put both bzt and zaval on my foes list. I'm a bit tired of all this alpha-male crap. (And, no - I am not a teenager, not by a long way.)