Grub errors after new installation of Fedora 44

Ask Fedora
, ,
1

I’ve just installed Fedora-44. After the grub message, I got this error twice:

error: ../..grub-core/commands/loadenv.h:read_envblk_file:51:invalid environment block.

I think I’ve fixed it with these instructions from ChatGPT, but I’d like a second opinion :).

chris@fedora:~$ sudo grub2-editenv /boot/grub2/grubenv create
chris@fedora:~$ sudo grub2-editenv /boot/efi/EFI/fedora/grubenv create
chris@fedora:~$ sudo grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
chris@fedora:~$ sudo rm -f /boot/grub2/grubenv
chris@fedora:~$ sudo grub2-editenv /boot/grub2/grubenv create

3

Apparently it should be sufficient to do a system update (pulling in the Grub packages with the relevant bugfix), and then run:

sudo grub2-editenv - create

(source)

It looks like you did that at least twice so you’re probably OK :grinning_face:

My slight reservation would be whether creating the file on the EFI partition (in your second command) has caused any issues - I don’t know enough to say for sure.

4

Do you know what the problem was? A built-in Grub bug in Fedora-44?

Does that mean that doing a system update would include a fix for a known bug?

Presumably this is needed because the update isn’t enough to fix it.

This looks a bit poor to me - publishing a new version of Fedora with a built in serious bug in Grub! That’s assuming I’ve understood what you are saying.

I think I’d better re-install Fedora to be sure it’s right. I might go back to Fedora-43.

5

Yes, you can see the thread I linked for further details, including a Bugzila link.

Yes - as well as updating the code, the existing environment data on the boot partition needs to be updated.

I’m not involved in these decisions, I just recognised that there was an existing thread on this issue, and signposted you to that.

6

Running the regular sudo dnf upgrade --refresh would fix the issue. The upgrade includes a new grub2-editenv which will fix the problem everytime something changes in the environment block. Every kernel update would do that.

7

Sorry I didn’t understand what (source) meant so didn’t think to click it.

I wasn’t suggesting that you were - I meant that it was a poor decision by Fedora management.

Having had a quick look at the linked thread I’m quite shocked that such a significant bug got past the pre-release testing. I won’t be using Fedora-44 until it’s sorted properly.

I’m inclined to agree with “Lorenzo”:

There are several “serious” issues here but the “feature” itself.

the “feature” made to the final release
despite it seems the “feature” was known before the final release, it was passed on to the final users and no information was given about it and the relatively easy fix
the “feature” showed that Grub is not configured depending on the actual disk partitions, it is just a default config file that is copied

I am not upset, I am saddened.

If I was new to Fedora I would have assumed that it was an amateurish attempt at an OS and would have been put off Linux for life.

8

You are calling this a bug but IME a new installation of fedora to use grub for booting (almost all editions and spins) will ALWAYS create the /boot/grub2/grubenv file. If it did not for you then it would appear the final step of the installation where it creates the boot loader may have been interrupted.

The comments by @pg-tips above are spot on.

The issues in the link above are related to having /boot exist on a btrfs file system and not on the standard ext4 file system. The first post there is about a cosmetic bug that managed to get past the creation of the iso and has since been fixed with a simple update of the system which fixes that grub cosmetic error.

9

As Steve Jobs (never) said. If a MacOS user sees a scary message about a bootloader failure he won’t be concerned and will be quite happy to “do his research”, find a long technical description of a solution, interpret it, then open a terminal and type a Bash command.

10

I just saw that KDE had this error not and Workstation got it!! So and almost every spin I guess is a bit exaggerated.
It was proposed that atomic desktops come with the /boot partition as BTRFS. And since this has been tested the error got introduced into the normal Workstation too.

It was a cosmetic, beautiful painted, with red dots, and in a nice orange box presented bug, which still today, costs us a lot of time, to explain that it is harmless[1].

When you ask for a ISO without error you get the answer that this might not happens etc.

  1. No problem the lovely voluntary folks have the pleasure to discuss and explain hundreds of times that it is just a cosmetic error ↩︎

11

My post said that installations of (almost all editions and spins) creates the grubenv file. I never said this error appeared anywhere but on Workstation. In fact it appears, according to discussion on the bug report, that only the Workstation edition saw this problem and it has been fixed. It was deemed harmless and cosmetic only.

12

cosmetic /kŏz-mĕt′ĭk/

noun

  1. A preparation, such as powder or a skin cream, designed to beautify the body by direct application.
    2. Something superficial that is used to cover a deficiency or defect.
  2. Any external application intended to beautify and improve the complexion.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

13

While the definition of the noun cosmetic is as you show, the use of cosmetic in a sentence generally means it is related to appearance, just as cosmetics alter a persons appearance. In most cases ‘cosmetic’ is used as an adjective and is directly related to appearance.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/sentences/cosmetic

14

Have you ever heard of the fable ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’?
I think there are Fedora people who should read it.

16

Rant mode off.