BUG: 9.0 stage 2 boot (/boot/boot)

[rank1seeker at gmail.com]

----- Original Message -----
From: John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org>
To: rank1seeker at gmail.com
Cc: hackers at freebsd.org, "Roman Divacky" <rdivacky at freebsd.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:26:59 -0500
Subject: Re: BUG: 9.0 stage 2 boot (/boot/boot)

> On Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:09:06 pm rank1seeker at gmail.com wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org>
> > To: rank1seeker at gmail.com
> > Cc: hackers at freebsd.org, "Roman Divacky" <rdivacky at freebsd.org>
> > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:23:59 -0500
> > Subject: Re: BUG: 9.0 stage 2 boot (/boot/boot)
> > 
> > > On Saturday, February 25, 2012 9:41:48 am rank1seeker at gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Do you only see the "No " message?  Do you see the '/boot.config: /loader'
> > > > > message?  (Do you have RBX_QUIET enabled perhaps? (-q))  Do you get the actual
> > > > > boot2 prompt at all?
> > > > 
> > > > I don't have RBX_QUIET enabled nor any other flags
> > > > 
> > > > Let the pic tell a story:
> > > > http://www.starforce.biz/stage2boot.jpg
> > > 
> > > Ahh, this is helpful.  You do see the '/boot.config: /loader' message.
> > 
> > I've already explained that, numerous times (RE-typing ...)
> 
> It was not as obvious before, and you are seeing a failure that no one else
> has reported, so you need to be patient.
> 
> > > > Patch eliminates possible error, of manual "intervention"
> > > > That is, a perfectly valid patch being classified as invalid.
> > > 
> > > I have no idea what you mean here.  However, it seems you don't have junk in
> > > your 'opts' variable anyway.
> > 
> > What I meant was that I won't manually(edit file) apply patch, but via 'patch' tool/bin.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > > Hmm, you could try adding some more debugging to boot2.c to see exactly what
> > > is failing.  For example, does the first call to 'parse()' fail and clear
> > > autoboot?
> > 
> > I don't do nor understand c code.
> 
> Ok.  That will take a bit longer to fix, but that is ok.  I've attached a new
> patch with some debugging output.  It shouldn't fix the problem yet, but I want
> to see if any of the new messages are output, and when they are output.
> 
> > How could it silently loose documented functionality?
> 
> Several changes were made to boot2 to make it smaller so it could be compiled with
> clang, and it seems that at least one of those changes must have had a bug.
> 
> -- 
> John Baldwin
>


Patch fails at 9.0 RELEASE: (Is this for 9 STABLE?)
----
Hmm...  Looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|Index: boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c
|===================================================================
|--- boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c    (revision 232297)
|+++ boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c    (working copy)
--------------------------
Patching file /sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c using Plan A...
Hunk #1 failed at 225.
Hunk #2 failed at 242.
Hunk #3 failed at 265.
3 out of 3 hunks failed--saving rejects to /sys/boot/i386/boot2/boot2.c.rej
Hmm...  Ignoring the trailing garbage.
done
----


I'll give you a hint (which I've mentioned at start)

In order to expose bug, 2 conditions have to be met:
   1) boot.config in use
   2) daX device (i.e; USB stick)

That is ...
I've created vnode image. Then, ... when I 'dd' it to HDD's slice, it boots.
BUT when I 'dd' it to USB's slice it hangs.


Domagoj Smolčić