Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1650474 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-25 15:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-05-29 07:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [linux-next] PPC Lpar fail to boot with error hid: module verification failed: signature and/or required key missing - tainting kernel Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-05-25 15:10 +0200
Re: [linux-next] PPC Lpar fail to boot with error hid: module verification failed: signature and/or required key missing - tainting kernel Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-05-25 23:30 +0200
Re: [linux-next] PPC Lpar fail to boot with error hid: module verification failed: signature and/or required key missing - tainting kernel Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> - 2017-05-26 08:30 +0200
Re: [linux-next] PPC Lpar fail to boot with error hid: module verification failed: signature and/or required key missing - tainting kernel Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-05-29 07:10 +0200
| From | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-25 15:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [linux-next] PPC Lpar fail to boot with error hid: module verification failed: signature and/or required key missing - tainting kernel |
| Message-ID | <tL0GC-c1-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Abdul Haleem <abdhalee@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Test : boot
> Machine : Power 8 PowerVM LPAR
> Kernel version : 4.12.0-rc2-next-20170524
> Toolchain : gcc version 5.2.1
> Config : attached
>
> next-20170517 was last good version where we did not see the failure.
> from next-20170519 to today's next-20170524, we see the problem
> everyday.
>
> Kernels fails to boot on PowerVM LPAR with these errors;
>
> Freeing unused kernel memory: 4416K
> This architecture does not have kernel memory protection.
> Loading, please wait...
> mount: mounting udev on /dev failed: Device or resource busy
> W: devtmpfs not available, falling back to tmpfs for /dev
It'll be:
ee35011fd032 ("initramfs: make initramfs honor CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT")
cheers
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-25 23:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [linux-next] PPC Lpar fail to boot with error hid: module verification failed: signature and/or required key missing - tainting kernel |
| Message-ID | <tL8ut-55g-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1650474 |
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 25 May 2017 23:02:06 +1000 Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>
> It'll be:
>
> ee35011fd032 ("initramfs: make initramfs honor CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT")
And Andrew has asked me to drop that patch from linux-next which will
happen today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 08:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [linux-next] PPC Lpar fail to boot with error hid: module verification failed: signature and/or required key missing - tainting kernel |
| Message-ID | <tLgV3-2kV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1650830 |
On 05/25/2017 04:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2017 23:02:06 +1000 Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>>
>> It'll be:
>>
>> ee35011fd032 ("initramfs: make initramfs honor CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT")
>
> And Andrew has asked me to drop that patch from linux-next which will
> happen today.
What approach do the kernel developers suggest I take here?
I would have thought letting it soak in linux-next for a release so
people could fix userspace bugs would be the next step, but this sounds
like that's not an option?
Is the behavior the patch implements wrong?
Rob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 07:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tMl6h-3IB-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1651099 |
Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> writes:
> On 05/25/2017 04:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> On Thu, 25 May 2017 23:02:06 +1000 Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> It'll be:
>>>
>>> ee35011fd032 ("initramfs: make initramfs honor CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT")
>>
>> And Andrew has asked me to drop that patch from linux-next which will
>> happen today.
>
> What approach do the kernel developers suggest I take here?
Well I'm just *a* kernel developer, but rule #1 is don't break userspace.
> I would have thought letting it soak in linux-next for a release so
> people could fix userspace bugs would be the next step, but this sounds
> like that's not an option?
You say they're userspace bugs, userspace will say it's a bug that the
kernel has changed its behaviour.
> Is the behavior the patch implements wrong?
Yes, because it breaks existing setups for no particularly good reason.
If CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT had always meant devtmpfs was mounted in the
initramfs then that would have been fine.
But because it didn't, there are now systems out there that depend on
the existing behaviour, and changing it is therefore wrong IMHO.
As I said in another mail you can avoid breaking existing setups by
adding a new config option to control mounting devtmpfs in the
initramfs. It's a pity to need yet another config option, but such is
life.
cheers
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web