Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 18:22:34 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Chris <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> Cc: Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [Bug 254395] bsdinstall: fail script install after BETA3 Message-ID: <CANCZdfp6EZ5qn7DoNpqWvGdYXsB6cNZDn0Lxq1LD5Za-1EmT_w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <90f9503e7f82aabb4041fc8786e840a5@bsdforge.com> References: <bug-254395-2597@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> <bug-254395-2597-djsz8ngnqS@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> <2132088f8d7addba911e3f49fc674e1b@bsdforge.com> <024a371e-a57d-9b94-b85a-e8b59be76a22@yuripv.dev> <28321ED9-BFAF-434A-9E3E-07932A3B4863@me.com> <CANCZdfoFocXrFgzeT6r=vtaN=ASUDWTk12M=1wZnVjKZcT5eGA@mail.gmail.com> <90f9503e7f82aabb4041fc8786e840a5@bsdforge.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:45 PM Chris <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> wrote: > On 2021-03-19 15:55, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 4:49 PM Toomas Soome via freebsd-current < > > freebsd-current@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > On 20. Mar 2021, at 00:21, Yuri Pankov <yuripv@yuripv.dev> wrote: > >> > > >> > Chris wrote: > >> >> On 2021-03-19 13:06, bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org wrote: > >> >>> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=254395 > >> >>> > >> >>> Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org> changed: > >> >>> > >> >>> What |Removed |Added > >> >>> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>> > >> >>> Severity|Affects Only Me |Affects Some People > >> >>> CC| |imp@FreeBSD.org > >> >>> Priority|--- |Normal > >> >>> > >> >>> --- Comment #6 from Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org> --- > >> >>> Thanks for the suggestion about the documentation -- I've updated > the > >> >>> man page. > >> >>> > >> >>> The core problem here is that our tar can't extract archives to > FAT32 > >> >>> with > >> >>> default options, since it treats inability to set modification time > as > >> >>> a fatal > >> >>> error and FAT32 doesn't let you do that on the root directory. As > >> >>> such, any > >> >>> file in the release tarballs can't be extracted to FAT32. For > >> interactive > >> >>> installations, the bsdinstall distextract tool, a CURSES-y frontend > to > >> >>> libarchive, solves this by ignoring ctime/mtime errors. > >> >>> > >> >>> Some extra commentary on solutions, so it can be in one place. > >> >>> Possibilities > >> >>> are: > >> >>> > >> >>> 1. We drop /boot/efi from mtree. That will result in it not > existing in > >> >>> base.txz, solving this issue, but will result in it not being in > >> >>> mtree. It will > >> >>> also leave in place an identical bug that will break scripted > >> >>> installation on > >> >>> bare-metal POWER8 and POWER9 systems, although that is a tier-2 > >> platform. > >> >>> > >> >>> 2. We add an option to tar to ignore failure in setting ctime/mtime, > >> >>> like the > >> >>> interactive installer uses. This has the difficulty that the patch > is > >> >>> hacky and > >> >>> would have to go through upstream. > >> >>> > >> >>> 3. We go back to using distextract for scripted installations as > well > >> as > >> >>> interactive ones, reverting > d7640440fb644fde697f62fdff0b55aa3a4d5ef7. > >> >>> This > >> >>> fixes this issue but will result in installation failures for > scripted > >> >>> installs > >> >>> without a controlling tty. (It will also add nice progress bars to > >> >>> scripted > >> >>> installs). > >> >>> > >> >>> 4. We do --exclude /boot/efi when running tar, then mkdir -p it by > hand > >> >>> afterward. This is incredibly hacky and otherwise essentially > >> >>> functionally > >> >>> equivalent to #1. Like #1, it will fix this issue and has no obvious > >> >>> functional > >> >>> downside, but leaves scripted installs bare-metal POWER8 and POWER9 > >> >>> broken. > >> >>> > >> >>> 5. We patch the file system driver to (pretend to) allow setting > times > >> >>> on the > >> >>> mount point. I don't want to do this, since I don't want to solve > this > >> >>> in the > >> >>> kernel at RC3 and I don't like it pretending to do things it can't > do. > >> >> > >> >> 6. (my favorite) do NOT require that the efi/ partition be in > strictly > >> a > >> >> fat32 format. I mean fat32 is not strictly required as the format > for > >> >> the efi > >> >> partition. It is simply _assumed_ to be the required format and as > >> >> such, the > >> >> one used in so many cases. > >> > > >> > Wrong, see "13.3 File System Format" in UEFI specification. > >> > > >> > >> it is not as simple as that:) > >> > >> > >> 13.3.1.1 is more specific: > >> ===================== > >> The EFI firmware must support the FAT32, FAT16, and FAT12 variants of > the > >> EFI file system. What variant of EFI FAT to use is defined by the size > of > >> the media. The rules defining the relationship between media size and > FAT > >> variants is defined in the specification for the EFI file system. > >> > > > > We've also seen a few non-conformant systems where FAT12 support has been > > removed, so there's also a bit of real-world experience that goes along > > with reading the UEFI specification :(. > I suppose that may be part of where my understanding came from. I've > got a couple of "hackintoshes" that dual-boot OS X, and FreeBSD. Part of > the process was working with the EFI partition (ESP) to get recognition > of both OS's in the (EFI) boot menu, as well as getting the firmware > properly functional in both instances. I also draw from a long article > by a boot manager author whom insisted that fat32 was not a requirement. > I've not got the time ATM to dig up the article. But it had many pointers > to the EFI spec to prove the point. All of which I verified. > In any case, sorry for the noise if I'm wrong. I'll dig up my references > when I can find the time. :-) > FAT32 appears to work the most places, even if it isn't a de-facto requirement. FAT16 is a close second (I think only one instance where the BIOS couldn't cope), while FAT12 is missing in a surprising number of implementations that's ever changing... I read the same text years ago that said all three are fine, but experience since then suggests more caution when setting the defaults for an installer. Warner > --Chris > > > > Warner > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 4:49 PM Toomas Soome via freebsd-current < > > freebsd-current@freebsd.org> wrote: >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfp6EZ5qn7DoNpqWvGdYXsB6cNZDn0Lxq1LD5Za-1EmT_w>