Summary: | IPFire does not boot after Update from CU169 to CU170 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | IPFire | Reporter: | Dirk Sihling <dsihling> |
Component: | --- | Assignee: | Michael Tremer <michael.tremer> |
Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | Crash | ||
Priority: | Will affect almost no one | ||
Version: | 2 | ||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Attachments: | Screenshot when booting stopped |
Description
Dirk Sihling
2022-09-27 08:31:09 UTC
Is this reproducible by applying the update again or did the RAID controller malfunction? (In reply to Michael Tremer from comment #1) > Is this reproducible by applying the update again or did the RAID controller > malfunction? I did not try the update again because this is my production system and about 30 people rely on it working. I tried to start the system twice, both time with no success. Starting with CU169 worked without any problems. The RAID function of the controller is not used, both disks form a software RAID1 as offered by IPFire (https://bugzilla.ipfire.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12862). Friday evening I could give it another try. We did not get any other reports about problems with this update. So I do not know what else we can do here apart from trying again... Sorry. (In reply to Michael Tremer from comment #3) > We did not get any other reports about problems with this update. So I do > not know what else we can do here apart from trying again... Sorry. No problem. Is there anything I should check or look for before and after applying the update? Not really. We do not do anything else apart from extracting files and running a few scripts. A screenshot would be helpful. Created attachment 1092 [details]
Screenshot when booting stopped
I am afraid I haven't had a chance for looking into this until today. Unfortunately the problem is reproducible. CU169 works fine, but upgrading to 170 or now to 171 leads to a system that doesn't boot. The reason seems to be that no devices are found. I can't understand why it works with CU169 but not with newer systems. I would be happy if someone could give me a hint how to track this problem. The first lines of rdsosreport.txt look like this: dracut:/# less /run/initramfs/rdsosreport.txt + cat /lib/dracut/dracut-056 dracut-056 + echo /proc/cmdline /proc/cmdline + sed -e 's/\(ftp:\/\/.*\):.*@/\1:*******@/g;s/\(cifs:\/\/.*\):.*@/\1:*******@/g;s/cifspass=[^ ]*/cifspass=*******/g;s/iscsi:.*@/iscsi:******@/g;s/rd.iscsi.password=[^ ]*/rd.iscsi.password=******/g;s/rd.iscsi.in.password=[^ ]*/rd.iscsi.in.password=******/g' /proc/cmdline BOOT_IMAGE=/vmlinuz-5.15.71-ipfire root=UUID=a16c8d30-a521-4f54-b342-4601b54d802f ro rd.auto console=ttyS0,115200n8 rd.debug panic=10 + '[' -f /etc/cmdline ']' + for _i in /etc/cmdline.d/*.conf + '[' -f '/etc/cmdline.d/*.conf' ']' + break + cat /proc/self/mountinfo 1 1 0:2 / / rw - rootfs none rw 17 1 0:16 / /proc rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime - proc proc rw 18 1 0:17 / /sys rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime - sysfs sysfs rw 19 1 0:5 / /dev rw,nosuid,noexec - devtmpfs devtmpfs rw,size=7970008k,nr_inodes=1992502,mode=755 20 19 0:18 / /dev/pts rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime - devpts devpts rw,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000 21 19 0:19 / /dev/shm rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec - tmpfs tmpfs rw 22 1 0:20 / /run rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec - tmpfs tmpfs rw,mode=755 + cat /proc/mounts none / rootfs rw 0 0 proc /proc proc rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime 0 0 sysfs /sys sysfs rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime 0 0 0 0 devpts /dev/pts devpts rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000 0 0 tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec 0 0 tmpfs /run tmpfs rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,mode=755 0 0 + blkid + blkid -o udev + ls -l '/dev/disk/by*' ls: cannot access '/dev/disk/by*': No such file or directory I found the following ticket https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214311 about problems with my PERC H330 controller when booting in BIOS mode. I switched to UEFI and the disks where found. Problem solved as far as I am concerned. I am just surprised that this issue showed up between kernel versions 5.15.49 and 5.15.71. (In reply to Dirk Sihling from comment #8) > Problem solved as far as I am concerned. I am just surprised that this issue > showed up between kernel versions 5.15.49 and 5.15.71. That is indeed a very interesting problem. |