Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:02:40 +0100 From: Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> To: rgrimes@freebsd.org Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Brandon Bergren <bdragon@freebsd.org>, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 2c26d77d989a - main - Remove /boot/efi from mtree, missed in 0b7472b3d8d2. Message-ID: <20210304160240.494a85605396c0751d7313da@bidouilliste.com> In-Reply-To: <202103041456.124EuB88056045@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> References: <6e52fee6-a2fd-584f-757e-e77a8f8ea8eb@freebsd.org> <202103041456.124EuB88056045@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 06:56:11 -0800 (PST) "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > On 3/3/21 10:38 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:13 AM Nathan Whitehorn > > > <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org <mailto:nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/3/21 9:05 AM, Brandon Bergren wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021, at 6:53 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > >> What am I missing here?? One place I am being told this is run in > > > >> an environment that may not even be an EFI booted system, and in > > > >> another place it is being used as a test if something is mounted > > > >> on it, which should only be true on an EFI booted system. > > > > That the script in question is a generic script that runs as > > > part of bsdinstall on every platform and has to be universal. > > > > > > > > The actual *problem* here is that > > > usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts/bootconfig has a default case that is > > > >? ? ? ? ? ? ? *)? ? ? ? ? die "Unsupported arch $(uname -m) for > > > UEFI install" > > > > > > > > which then causes the main script to bail out, leaving the > > > system in a half-installed state. > > > > > > > > If that had just been an exit 0 this would have never been a > > > problem, I suppose. > > > > > > > > Before the original change that broke this, there was a check > > > that the script was not running on powerpc or mips platforms > > > before running the efi bits, but this got taken out. > > > > > > > > > > Well, incidentally. The bootconfig script needs to know if there > > > is an > > > ESP it should configure, but the signalling mechanism (the > > > presence of > > > the ESP mount point) was being broken by mtree making that directory > > > unconditionally even on systems that don't use EFI. So then > > > bootconfig > > > tried to set it up, but failed later on, because there was no EFI > > > loader > > > to set up. The mtree change makes the ESP mount point only exist on > > > systems with an ESP. > > > > > > > > > So you made a unilateral change, without discussion of the bigger > > > design, to something without even asking the original person who made > > > the change to mtree about it for what sounds like an obscure case in > > > the installer that could be solved in a different way? It's trivial > > > enough to look at the boot method sysctl and skip the EFI update if we > > > didn't boot EFI (and if by change that's not on all systems, it's easy > > > enough to add it on all systems). I have no notion about why that > > > wasn't considered, at least, before jumping in and taking people by > > > surprise. > > I still do not understand why machdep.bootmethod=EFI was rejected? > Is this value not present on ALL platforms that boot in EFI mode? > if exist(machdep.bootmethod) && machdep.bootmethod=EFI seems to > me to be the best and valid way to make this decision. If that > has issues working on a platform we need to fix that issue and not > do all this other stuff. We need to install and create the efi dir even if the installer is booted in CSM mode, so a user can switch to full uefi mode after and still can boot the FreeBSD that was installed. (The same thing must be done for bios boot code). > > > > > > Next time, talk to people first. That's the whole point of having > > > review tools, mailing list and git blame. > > > > > > Warner > > > > This method of testing was in the original review here posted on Feb. > > 23: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D28897 > > > > The description of the test procedure you're objecting to was even in > > the summary! Then we had a discussion by email about the change to mtree > > on the committers list on Feb. 28 to resolve a bug affecting PowerPC in > > the patch reviewed and approved by you. I then waited several days and > > had a long thread for several days on the mailing list about the > > approach. coming up with this short patch -- again, as a bug fix to a > > reviewed approach. > > > > We can change the logic -- that's fine! But, to paraphrase, the reason > > we have reviews is so people like you can look at the review and note > > these kinds of problems when they are reviewed, not after the commit > > goes in. There's a significant amount of whiplash when you do get > > patches reviewed, approved, and then the person who reviewed and > > approved them accuses you of "taking people by surprise". > > > > The installer *does* mount the partition in advance, so checking whether > > there is a mounted file system is a perfectly reasonable test to do. We > > could also check fstab. I would like to understand what is actually > > wrong here first, though. Especially after this misfire -- which is > > problematic for reasons that are still not clear to me, since there are > > a number of standard directories in hier(7) not in mtree -- I want to > > make sure we actually do have consensus about what is changing and why. > > These *should* be fixed. ALL directories that are part of a finished > FreeBSD system should be present both in hier.7 and in the mtree files, > deviating from that should only be allowed if there is some really > really grand reasons. If the reason is "architecture foo does not > have directory /bar/zap" one could and should create an arch specific > mtree file that covers these, having these mkdir's (prefer to see > all those changed to install -d's) scattered around all over, IMHO > creates maintance and inconsistency issues. > > > -Nathan > -- > Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org -- Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> <manu@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20210304160240.494a85605396c0751d7313da>