Greetings,
I hadn't had time to build/test kernels since 2.5.8-pre3. I now find that
loadlin doesn't work on my box any more. Is this a known problem? If so,
when did it quit working? (loadlin obsolete? other?)
At the moment, the only way I have to boot is via floppy.
tia for any tips,
-Mike
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I hadn't had time to build/test kernels since 2.5.8-pre3. I now find that
> loadlin doesn't work on my box any more. Is this a known problem? If so,
> when did it quit working? (loadlin obsolete? other?)
I'm carrying an open problem report from Rene Blokland on this issue.
What version of the kernel did you try?
At 08:17 AM 10/20/2002 -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I hadn't had time to build/test kernels since 2.5.8-pre3. I now find that
> > loadlin doesn't work on my box any more. Is this a known problem? If so,
> > when did it quit working? (loadlin obsolete? other?)
>
>I'm carrying an open problem report from Rene Blokland on this issue.
>What version of the kernel did you try?
Only 2.5.42.virgin, 2.5.42-mm, 2.5.43-mm and 2.5.44.virgin. Binary search
pending.
-Mike
At 12:55 PM 10/20/2002 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>In a message dated 10/20/2002 9:03:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[email protected] writes:
>
>
>>Subj:loadlin with 2.5.?? kernels
>>Date:10/20/2002 9:03:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>From:<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>To:<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
>>Sent from the Internet
>>
>>
>>
>>Greetings,
>>
>>I hadn't had time to build/test kernels since 2.5.8-pre3. I now find that
>>loadlin doesn't work on my box any more. Is this a known problem? If so,
>>when did it quit working? (loadlin obsolete? other?)
>>
>>At the moment, the only way I have to boot is via floppy.
>
>
>loadlin will not work with any kernel that is 1024k or greater in size.
>There is a replacement named "linld" at:
>http://www.tux.org/pub/people/kent-robotti/looplinux/index.html
>which help you.
Yeah, that's always been a pain, but that's not what I'm hitting (violent
reboot). I'll give linld (thanks!) a shot, but mostly, I want my dearly
beloved loadlin back ;-)
-Mike
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> At 08:17 AM 10/20/2002 -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
> >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > I hadn't had time to build/test kernels since 2.5.8-pre3. I now find that
> > > loadlin doesn't work on my box any more. Is this a known problem? If so,
> > > when did it quit working? (loadlin obsolete? other?)
> >
> >I'm carrying an open problem report from Rene Blokland on this issue.
> >What version of the kernel did you try?
>
> Only 2.5.42.virgin, 2.5.42-mm, 2.5.43-mm and 2.5.44.virgin. Binary search
> pending.
The report stated the problem was noted with 2.5.4x. One of the
developers might want to speak up as to whether finding the exact point of
breakage is useful.
On 20 October 2002 16:58, Thomas Molina wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > At 08:17 AM 10/20/2002 -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
> > >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > Greetings,
> > > >
> > > > I hadn't had time to build/test kernels since 2.5.8-pre3. I
> > > > now find that loadlin doesn't work on my box any more. Is this
> > > > a known problem? If so, when did it quit working? (loadlin
> > > > obsolete? other?)
> > >
> > >I'm carrying an open problem report from Rene Blokland on this
> > > issue. What version of the kernel did you try?
> >
> > Only 2.5.42.virgin, 2.5.42-mm, 2.5.43-mm and 2.5.44.virgin. Binary
> > search pending.
>
> The report stated the problem was noted with 2.5.4x. One of the
> developers might want to speak up as to whether finding the exact
> point of breakage is useful.
Shameless plug time.
http://port-ilyichevsk.com.ua/linux/vda/linld/
linld095.tar.bz2 does contain source.
Get *devel.tar.bz2 only if you _don't have Borland C_ and want to recompile.
--
vda
At 01:58 PM 10/20/2002 -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > At 08:17 AM 10/20/2002 -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
> > >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > Greetings,
> > > >
> > > > I hadn't had time to build/test kernels since 2.5.8-pre3. I now
> find that
> > > > loadlin doesn't work on my box any more. Is this a known
> problem? If so,
> > > > when did it quit working? (loadlin obsolete? other?)
> > >
> > >I'm carrying an open problem report from Rene Blokland on this issue.
> > >What version of the kernel did you try?
> >
> > Only 2.5.42.virgin, 2.5.42-mm, 2.5.43-mm and 2.5.44.virgin. Binary search
> > pending.
>
>The report stated the problem was noted with 2.5.4x. One of the
>developers might want to speak up as to whether finding the exact point of
>breakage is useful.
2.5.32 is the breakage point here. I hope someone _else_ can salvage
loadlin :)
(lions and tigers and bears - oh my GDT!)
-Dorothy
Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> writes:
> At 01:58 PM 10/20/2002 -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
> >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > At 08:17 AM 10/20/2002 -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
> > > >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Greetings,
> > > > >
> > > > > I hadn't had time to build/test kernels since 2.5.8-pre3. I now find
> > that
> > > > > loadlin doesn't work on my box any more. Is this a known problem? If
> > so,
> > > > > when did it quit working? (loadlin obsolete? other?)
> > > >
> > > >I'm carrying an open problem report from Rene Blokland on this issue.
> > > >What version of the kernel did you try?
> > >
> > > Only 2.5.42.virgin, 2.5.42-mm, 2.5.43-mm and 2.5.44.virgin. Binary search
> > > pending.
> >
> >The report stated the problem was noted with 2.5.4x. One of the
> >developers might want to speak up as to whether finding the exact point of
> >breakage is useful.
>
> 2.5.32 is the breakage point here. I hope someone _else_ can salvage loadlin :)
>
>
> (lions and tigers and bears - oh my GDT!)
Cool, thanks, for the confirmation. Other people are seeing breaking a little
later. Just to clarify. .30 or .31 is the last version that worked and .32
does not?
If it is really the gdt I have some old patches that roughly do the
right thing, and I just need to dust them off.
Eric
(sorry, I have to use this pos at work)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>
To: "Mike Galbraith" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Thomas Molina" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: loadlin with 2.5.?? kernels
> Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > At 01:58 PM 10/20/2002 -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
> > >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 08:17 AM 10/20/2002 -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
> > > > >On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I hadn't had time to build/test kernels since 2.5.8-pre3. I
now find
> > > that
> > > > > > loadlin doesn't work on my box any more. Is this a known
problem? If
> > > so,
> > > > > > when did it quit working? (loadlin obsolete? other?)
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm carrying an open problem report from Rene Blokland on this
issue.
> > > > >What version of the kernel did you try?
> > > >
> > > > Only 2.5.42.virgin, 2.5.42-mm, 2.5.43-mm and 2.5.44.virgin.
Binary search
> > > > pending.
> > >
> > >The report stated the problem was noted with 2.5.4x. One of the
> > >developers might want to speak up as to whether finding the exact
point of
> > >breakage is useful.
> >
> > 2.5.32 is the breakage point here. I hope someone _else_ can
salvage loadlin :)
> >
> >
> > (lions and tigers and bears - oh my GDT!)
>
> Cool, thanks, for the confirmation. Other people are seeing breaking
a little
> later. Just to clarify. .30 or .31 is the last version that worked
and .32
> does not?
Yes. .31 exploded on me after boot, but did not do the violent reboot
during boot.
> If it is really the gdt I have some old patches that roughly do the
> right thing, and I just need to dust them off.
You dust them off, and I'll be more than happy to test them. I keep
entirely too many kernels resident to want to use lilo.
(kexec/bootimg wonderfulness solves my problem too. boot into a stable
kernel, instant reboot into any one I want. gimme gimme gimme:)
-Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <[email protected]>
To: "Mike Galbraith" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Thomas Molina" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: loadlin with 2.5.?? kernels
> "Mike Galbraith" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > (sorry, I have to use this pos at work)
> >
> > Yes. .31 exploded on me after boot, but did not do the violent
reboot
> > during boot.
>
> Earlier you had said it was .38 or so where the failures kicked in,
> so I figured it was some other problem.
(that was someone else)
> > > If it is really the gdt I have some old patches that roughly do
the
> > > right thing, and I just need to dust them off.
> >
> > You dust them off, and I'll be more than happy to test them. I keep
> > entirely too many kernels resident to want to use lilo.
>
> Here you are.
> The following patch cleans up and removes unnecessary dependencies
from
> the x86 boot path.
Much appreciated. I will test/report back.
-Mike
At 03:31 PM 10/25/2002 +0200, you wrote:
> > > You dust them off, and I'll be more than happy to test them. I keep
> > > entirely too many kernels resident to want to use lilo.
> >
> > Here you are.
My little box suddenly remembered how to boot :) Thanks for the rescue
kind Sir.
-Mike
which version of loadlin does this patch?
Hans Lermen changed the gdt structure in version 1.6b to enable it to
boot a win4lin-enabled kernel - he also changed things recently (1.6c)
to boot kernels of between 0.5 &1.5Mb compressed.
(IF I sat down for half an hour I could comment better.. but you
probably know the answer straight-off anyway :-))
Bob Hall
In article <[email protected]>, Eric W. Biederman
<[email protected]> writes
>"Mike Galbraith" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> (sorry, I have to use this pos at work)
>>
>> Yes. .31 exploded on me after boot, but did not do the violent reboot
>> during boot.
>
>Earlier you had said it was .38 or so where the failures kicked in,
>so I figured it was some other problem.
>
>> > If it is really the gdt I have some old patches that roughly do the
>> > right thing, and I just need to dust them off.
>>
>> You dust them off, and I'll be more than happy to test them. I keep
>> entirely too many kernels resident to want to use lilo.
>
>Here you are.
>The following patch cleans up and removes unnecessary dependencies from
>the x86 boot path.
>
>> (kexec/bootimg wonderfulness solves my problem too. boot into a stable
>> kernel, instant reboot into any one I want. gimme gimme gimme:)
>
>It is getting there...
>I just need to find a formula that makes the linux kernel boot reliably.
>
>
>[ A MIME text / plain part was included here. ]
>
>
>Eric
--
robert w hall
robert w hall <[email protected]> writes:
> which version of loadlin does this patch?
It doesn't it patches the kernel so that it follows the documented
kernel boot protocol.
> Hans Lermen changed the gdt structure in version 1.6b to enable it to
> boot a win4lin-enabled kernel - he also changed things recently (1.6c)
> to boot kernels of between 0.5 &1.5Mb compressed.
With the small kernel restructuring a patch is unlikely to be needed
to boot a win4lin-enabled kernel either.
> (IF I sat down for half an hour I could comment better.. but you
> probably know the answer straight-off anyway :-))
Eric
At 11:00 PM 10/25/2002 +0100, robert w hall wrote:
>Hans Lermen changed the gdt structure in version 1.6b to enable it to
>boot a win4lin-enabled kernel - he also changed things recently (1.6c)
>to boot kernels of between 0.5 &1.5Mb compressed.
(1.5MB? I remember hitting the 1MB wall even after grabbing 1.6c. hmm..)
I went back and double-checked my loadlin version, and it turned out I was
actually using 1.6a due to a fat finger. Version 1.6c booted fine (only
one kernel tested) without Eric's help. 1.6a definitely needs Eric's help
to boot.
(gee, it works. sure hope I don't hit the new lard limit any time soon;)
-Mike
Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> writes:
> At 11:00 PM 10/25/2002 +0100, robert w hall wrote:
>
> >Hans Lermen changed the gdt structure in version 1.6b to enable it to
> >boot a win4lin-enabled kernel - he also changed things recently (1.6c)
> >to boot kernels of between 0.5 &1.5Mb compressed.
>
> (1.5MB? I remember hitting the 1MB wall even after grabbing 1.6c. hmm..)
>
> I went back and double-checked my loadlin version, and it turned out I was
> actually using 1.6a due to a fat finger. Version 1.6c booted fine (only one
> kernel tested) without Eric's help. 1.6a definitely needs Eric's help to boot.
Darn. I guess the arguments for my patch may not be quite as good,
but I still think it may be worth while.
> (gee, it works. sure hope I don't hit the new lard limit any time soon;)
I wonder what the change in 1.6b was....
Eric
At 11:20 PM 10/25/2002 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I went back and double-checked my loadlin version, and it turned out I was
> > actually using 1.6a due to a fat finger. Version 1.6c booted fine
> (only one
> > kernel tested) without Eric's help. 1.6a definitely needs Eric's help
> to boot.
>
>Darn. I guess the arguments for my patch may not be quite as good,
>but I still think it may be worth while.
Well, cleanup is always a pretty fine argument. Since there only seem to
be two of us loadlin users, you probably didn't loose much argument wise
;-) The other loadlin user reported failure at .38, so maybe your patch is
needed sometimes even with loadlin-1.6c. (other loadlin user listening?)
-Mike
In article <[email protected]>, Mike Galbraith wrote:
didn't loose much argument wise
> ;-) The other loadlin user reported failure at .38, so maybe your patch is
> needed sometimes even with loadlin-1.6c. (other loadlin user listening?)
Yes, I'm there and use 1.6c
--
Groeten / Regards, Rene J. Blokland
At 08:32 AM 10/26/2002 +0200, Rene Blokland wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Mike
>Galbraith wrote:
>didn't loose much argument wise
> > ;-) The other loadlin user reported failure at .38, so maybe your
> patch is
> > needed sometimes even with loadlin-1.6c. (other loadlin user listening?)
>Yes, I'm there and use 1.6c
Did Eric's patch fix your boot woes?
-Mike
In article <[email protected]>, Eric W. Biederman
<[email protected]> writes
>Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> writes:
>I wonder what the change in 1.6b was....
>
>Eric
IIRC - kernel_cs & kernel_ds are taken at runtime rather than from the
header file (segment.h?).
(because win4lin bumps them up from their old default values)
(Wine went to using a similar trick I think)
this is all from fading memory - but it's in the README for 1.6b I think
Bob
--
robert w hall
Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> writes:
> At 11:20 PM 10/25/2002 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > I went back and double-checked my loadlin version, and it turned out I was
> > > actually using 1.6a due to a fat finger. Version 1.6c booted fine (only one
>
> > > kernel tested) without Eric's help. 1.6a definitely needs Eric's help to
> > boot.
> >
> >Darn. I guess the arguments for my patch may not be quite as good,
> >but I still think it may be worth while.
>
> Well, cleanup is always a pretty fine argument. Since there only seem to be two
>
> of us loadlin users, you probably didn't loose much argument wise ;-) The other
>
> loadlin user reported failure at .38, so maybe your patch is needed sometimes
> even with loadlin-1.6c. (other loadlin user listening?)
Robert thanks for your reply.
I just looked at what the loadlin 1.6c code does, and it's heuristic
is just slightly more reliable. It assumes %ds is %cs+8.... That
happens to work but there is nothing in the kernel keeping that from
being broken. So in practice it looks to be worthwhile to stabilize
this interface. So loadlin, and other bootloaders can work by design
and not by chance.
Eric
In article <[email protected]>, Eric W. Biederman
<[email protected]> writes
>Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> At 11:20 PM 10/25/2002 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> > > I went back and double-checked my loadlin version, and it turned out I was
>> > > actually using 1.6a due to a fat finger. Version 1.6c booted fine (only
>one
>>
>> > > kernel tested) without Eric's help. 1.6a definitely needs Eric's help to
>> > boot.
>> >
>> >Darn. I guess the arguments for my patch may not be quite as good,
>> >but I still think it may be worth while.
>>
>> Well, cleanup is always a pretty fine argument. Since there only seem to be
>two
>>
>> of us loadlin users, you probably didn't loose much argument wise ;-) The
>other
>>
>> loadlin user reported failure at .38, so maybe your patch is needed sometimes
>> even with loadlin-1.6c. (other loadlin user listening?)
>
>Robert thanks for your reply.
(oops this thread is a bit messy now - sorry, I originally intended to
post off-list, [so as not to parade my ignorance in this august forum
:-) ], and made a cockup of withdrawing a post to LK)
>
>I just looked at what the loadlin 1.6c code does, and it's heuristic
>is just slightly more reliable. It assumes %ds is %cs+8....
well that relationship has held for about 9 years, so it was a fairly
safe bet when Hans was trying to fix 1.6a for win4lin :-)
> That
>happens to work but there is nothing in the kernel keeping that from
>being broken. So in practice it looks to be worthwhile to stabilize
>this interface.
agreed -
/ignorant query/
but if you aim for too much generality are you not eventually going to
need Hans Lermen to revisit his loadlin version of the startup code
(which is based in part on old code from head.S & misc.c of course)?
//
> So loadlin, and other bootloaders can work by design
>and not by chance.
might also be worth checking out linlod (which still is only a beta I
think) needs to run
>
>Eric
Bob
--
robert w hall
robert w hall <[email protected]> writes:
> > That
> >happens to work but there is nothing in the kernel keeping that from
> >being broken. So in practice it looks to be worthwhile to stabilize
> >this interface.
>
> agreed -
> /ignorant query/
> but if you aim for too much generality are you not eventually going to
> need Hans Lermen to revisit his loadlin version of the startup code
> (which is based in part on old code from head.S & misc.c of course)?
If I change the kernel so that it always will, and always can use 0x10
and 0x18. loadlin works by design. The rest of the kernel can use
some other GDT. That is what my patch does.
> might also be worth checking out linlod (which still is only a beta I
> think) needs to run
If I could find a reference to the x86 and not the alpha one I might.
Eric
In article <[email protected]>, Eric W. Biederman
<[email protected]> writes
>
>> might also be worth checking out linlod (which still is only a beta I
>> think) needs to run
>
>If I could find a reference to the x86 and not the alpha one I might.
>
>Eric
my bad (! ugh!)
'linld' in google finds it (current version is 0.95)
(won't post the eastern european URL, I'd probably screw it)
have also sent you the .com & tar.bz2 versions of linld 0.94 direct
--
robert w hall