Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:21:43 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org>, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> Cc: FreeBSD stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: krpc: unbootable ZFS-on-root after major upgrade to 11.2 Message-ID: <c63c24f7-dc7f-785f-ea13-f4a9d7802114@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20181022141527.GF13668@FreeBSD.org> References: <8517429b-9e3b-2ea3-80a6-12fc92106252@grosbein.net> <6627d159-fd52-2d10-2d45-97fd02725adc@FreeBSD.org> <5BC9A2E4.9010306@grosbein.net> <6c2f8adb-c0e7-550b-8595-e7a4768d5157@FreeBSD.org> <f6249da6-db28-6672-5d4f-3e711e98f87e@grosbein.net> <20181022140304.GE13668@FreeBSD.org> <1d5236b8-0269-5dce-3f2e-e7b1910836c6@grosbein.net> <20181022141527.GF13668@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22/10/2018 17:15, Glen Barber wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:09:14PM +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >> 22.10.2018 21:03, Glen Barber wrote: >> >> t's strange that this is a 10.x vs 11.x issue. >>>>> I see that zfs has the krpc dependency since r193128. >>>>> And the call to xdrmem_create is there since r168404. >>>> >>>> You are right. I was mis-informed and have not verified enough a report from local user. >>>> >>>> Glen, maybe that errata record should be deleted. The problem is real but it is long-standing >>>> and present in 10.x too. >>>> >>> >>> Could you elaborate more on the failure case you originally reported >>> first? If the problem is real, my feeling is that the errata entry >>> should stay, just worded differently to reflect the failure case here. >> >> zfs.ko depends on krpc.ko. The KRPC code in compiled in GENERIC kernel as dependency >> of NFS client/server code. The problem arises if all of these are true: >> >> 1) a system uses custom kernel with NFS options removed; >> 2) there is no krpc.ko available due to MODULES_OVERRIDE excluding it; >> 3) the system boots off ZFS pool. >> >> In such case, loader cannot resolve dependency and fails to load zfs.ko >> and kernel fails to mount root breaking boot sequence. >> >> > > So, if I understand correctly (and please correct me if I am wrong), the > majority of the text in the errata note is correct, however needs to be > tweaked to remove "upgrading from 10.x...". Is this generally correct? This is just a typical foot-shooting (and a shortcoming of the kernel build system that allows such foot-shooting to happen). I think that there can be other ways in which you can specify inconsistent kernel options and/or an incorrect subset of modules in MODULES_OVERRIDE to create missing dependencies for critical modules. Do we want to issue an errata for each possible misconfiguration? -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c63c24f7-dc7f-785f-ea13-f4a9d7802114>