Using kernel 5.19.8 does not boot

I am attaching a screen shot to show part of the boot process...

I have searched google the fedora sights with no results.

I have been using 5.18.10

Anybody have any ideas?

Thanks,

David

[Sam Varshavchik]

dwoodyard(a)rdwoodyard.com writes:

>  I am attaching a screen shot to show part of the boot process...
>
>  I have searched google the fedora sights with no results.
>
>  I have been using 5.18.10
>
>  Anybody have any ideas? 
This will likely be a waste of time, but, presuming that your previous  
kernel does boot, that this is a kernel 5.19 issue: boot back into the  
previous kernel, see if anything interesting shows up in

journalctl -r -b -1

I've gone through episodes of having a bad kernel come up. I just remained  
on the previous kernel, until this got sorted out. As long as you've booted  
a working kernel "dnf update" is not going to remove it, but just uninstall  
the oldest possible kernel that can be uninstalled.

[George N. White III]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 9:43 PM Sam Varshavchik <mrsam(a)courier-mta.com&gt;
wrote:

>  dwoodyard(a)rdwoodyard.com writes:
>
>  > I am attaching a screen shot to show part of the boot process...
>  >
>  > I have searched google the fedora sights with no results.
>  >
>  > I have been using 5.18.10
>  >
>  > Anybody have any ideas?
>
>  This will likely be a waste of time, but, presuming that your previous
>  kernel does boot, that this is a kernel 5.19 issue: boot back into the
>  previous kernel, see if anything interesting shows up in
>
>  journalctl -r -b -1
>  
I have an old iMac that dual boots Fedora 36 and macOS.  Upgrading from
5.19.8 to 5.19.9 fails to boot:

Sep 19 13:02:05 imacf36 systemd[1]: Mounted boot.mount - /boot.
Sep 19 13:02:05 imacf36 systemd[1]: Mounting boot-efi.mount - /boot/efi...
Sep 19 13:02:05 imacf36 mount[701]: mount: /boot/efi: unknown filesystem
type 'hfsplus'.

Booting 5.19.8 shows:

% df -lHT /dev/sda3
Filesystem     Type     Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda3      hfsplus  630M   34M  597M   6% /boot/efi

My Bell Aliant internet is broken, so have not been able to conduct a proper
search for bug reports.

>  I've gone through episodes of having a bad kernel come up. I just
>  remained
>  on the previous kernel, until this got sorted out. As long as you've
>  booted
>  a working kernel "dnf update" is not going to remove it, but just
>  uninstall
>  the oldest possible kernel that can be uninstalled.
>  
Same here.

-- 
George N. White III

[Roger Heflin]

Someone also reported nosound after 5.19.8 so it sounds like a lot of
the modules either weren't built (at all or correct) or were not
included in the install rpms.

a "find /lib/modules/kernelversion -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l against it
might tell you if the count is significantly different.

Also doing;
diff /boot/config-5.19.[89]*  would show if the config files
controlling module builds was different.

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 5:15 PM George N. White III <gnwiii(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 9:43 PM Sam Varshavchik <mrsam(a)courier-mta.com&gt; wrote:
>>
>> dwoodyard(a)rdwoodyard.com writes:
>>
>> > I am attaching a screen shot to show part of the boot process...
>> >
>> > I have searched google the fedora sights with no results.
>> >
>> > I have been using 5.18.10
>> >
>> > Anybody have any ideas?
>>
>> This will likely be a waste of time, but, presuming that your previous
>> kernel does boot, that this is a kernel 5.19 issue: boot back into the
>> previous kernel, see if anything interesting shows up in
>>
>> journalctl -r -b -1
>
>
> I have an old iMac that dual boots Fedora 36 and macOS.  Upgrading from 5.19.8 to
5.19.9 fails to boot:
>
> Sep 19 13:02:05 imacf36 systemd[1]: Mounted boot.mount - /boot.
> Sep 19 13:02:05 imacf36 systemd[1]: Mounting boot-efi.mount - /boot/efi...
> Sep 19 13:02:05 imacf36 mount[701]: mount: /boot/efi: unknown filesystem type
'hfsplus'.
>
> Booting 5.19.8 shows:
>
> % df -lHT /dev/sda3
> Filesystem     Type     Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sda3      hfsplus  630M   34M  597M   6% /boot/efi
>
> My Bell Aliant internet is broken, so have not been able to conduct a proper
> search for bug reports.
>>
>>
>> I've gone through episodes of having a bad kernel come up. I just remained
>> on the previous kernel, until this got sorted out. As long as you've booted
>> a working kernel "dnf update" is not going to remove it, but just
uninstall
>> the oldest possible kernel that can be uninstalled.
>
>
> Same here.
>
> --
> George N. White III
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[George N. White III]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:57 PM Roger Heflin <rogerheflin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Someone also reported nosound after 5.19.8 so it sounds like a lot
> of
>  the modules either weren't built (at all or correct) or were not
>  included in the install rpms.
>
>  a "find /lib/modules/kernelversion -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l against it
>  might tell you if the count is significantly different.
>  
% find /lib/modules/5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64 -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l
4097
% find /lib/modules/5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64 -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l
1878


>  Also doing;
>  diff /boot/config-5.19.[89]*  would show if the config files
>  controlling module builds was different.
>  
% diff /boot/config-5.19.[89]*
3c3
< # Linux/x86_64 5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64 Kernel Configuration
---
>  # Linux/x86_64 5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64 Kernel Configuration
35c35
< CONFIG_BUILD_SALT="5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64"
---
>  CONFIG_BUILD_SALT="5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64" 
3661c3661
< CONFIG_IWLMEI=m
---
>  # CONFIG_IWLMEI is not set 
IWLMEI pulls in a bunch of modules, but over 2000 seems excessive!

% find /lib/modules/5.19.[89]-200.fc36.x86_64 -name "*ko*" | grep hfsplus
/lib/modules/5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64/kernel/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus.ko.xz
% grep -i hfsplus /boot/config-5.19.[89]*
/boot/config-5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64:CONFIG_HFSPLUS_FS=m
/boot/config-5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64:CONFIG_HFSPLUS_FS=m

Looks like the 5-19.9 package installation missed hfsplus.ko, needed for
dual
boot with macOS.   Gnome Software update is showing 5.19.9 as an available
update despite the fact that it was installed a few days ago.  I updated
using
dnf on the command-line and the system is now booting 5.19.9.   Looks like
there was a bad 5.19.9 update that has been fixed.

-- 
George N. White III

[Sam Varshavchik]

George N. White III writes:

>  « HTML content follows »
>
>
>  On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:57 PM Roger Heflin  
>  <<URL:mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>     Someone also reported nosound after 5.19.8 so it sounds like a lot of
>     the modules either weren't built (at all or correct) or were not
>     included in the install rpms.
>
>     a "find /lib/modules/kernelversion -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l against it
>     might tell you if the count is significantly different.
>
>
>  % find /lib/modules/5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64 -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l  
>  4097
>  % find /lib/modules/5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64 -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l
>  1878 
Cannot reproduce here:

[root@traveler modules]# find 5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64/ -name '*ko*' -ls | wc - 
l
3970
[root@traveler modules]# find 5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64 -name '*ko*' -ls | wc -l
4097

Dependencies resolved.
================================================================================
 Package               Arch    Version           Repository                 
Size
================================================================================
Installing:
 kernel                x86_64  5.19.9-200.fc36   updates-released-local   262 k
 kernel-core           x86_64  5.19.9-200.fc36   updates-released-local    50 M
 kernel-modules        x86_64  5.19.9-200.fc36   updates-released-local    58 M
Removing:
 kernel                x86_64  5.19.6-200.fc36   @updates-released-local    0
 kernel-core           x86_64  5.19.6-200.fc36   @updates-released-local   92 M
 kernel-modules        x86_64  5.19.6-200.fc36   @updates-released-local   57 M
Removing dependent packages:
 kernel-modules-extra  x86_64  5.19.6-200.fc36   @updates-released-local  3.4 M

The kernel-modules-extra has a few hundred packages only, and there isn't  
one for 5.19.9.

[Tim]

On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 20:42 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>  I've gone through episodes of having a bad kernel come up. I just
> remained  
>  on the previous kernel, until this got sorted out. As long as you've booted  
>  a working kernel "dnf update" is not going to remove it, but just uninstall  
>  the oldest possible kernel that can be uninstalled. 
Likewise, though fortunately not for a long time.  Because of that I
usually reconfigure things so that at least 4 kernels are kept on a
system, at one stage I kept 6 (and I needed to, after a few rapidfire
releases of kernels that didn't play well on my system).
 
-- 
 
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.76.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Aug 10 16:21:17 UTC 2022 x86_64
 
Boilerplate:  All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.