Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:36:36 -0500 From: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> To: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: LUA loader: bhyve now doesn't? Message-ID: <CACNAnaEFnZax0UN135qa7rEcKMFcQPSUOiPqzg1--VdGQ999Kg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20180819163519.ss2nyhpxl7abpzzn@ler-imac.local> References: <20180819152253.bbcrefdvynl7y5ka@ler-imac.local> <CANCZdfqHV7Fy%2BbJAuMv5gfJmPJqh1QmKqjGz-bVH2wh6NyqeVQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180819153526.7ruovrpmdsimkmfj@ler-imac.local> <CANCZdfr2h=e-4%2BD9JYR3TkKyaEywYkCnXmyGmVMq6-NpN=GX2w@mail.gmail.com> <CACNAnaGh%2BgpwcDE3TQKd9xCnJpD4GtE2Z0wwjagKMUNVhdHznw@mail.gmail.com> <20180819163519.ss2nyhpxl7abpzzn@ler-imac.local>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 11:28:10AM -0500, Kyle Evans wrote: >> > filesystem? >> > >> >> (CC'ing jhb@ and tychon@, who might have better insight) >> >> If we can swing it, I think the best model here should have always >> been that userboot uses the host's scripts but the guest's >> loader.conf. The current model doesn't tolerate any mismatch between >> host and guest and looks unsustainable. > > Yeah, I have a FreeBSD-10, and a HardendBSD-12 VM, and BOTH failed until > I loaded the old /boot/userboot.so to my host. > > We really need to tolerate this condition, and NOT surprise the user. Right. That's what we're trying to figure out here, the best route forward to make this stuff reliably work.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaEFnZax0UN135qa7rEcKMFcQPSUOiPqzg1--VdGQ999Kg>