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]

[e-mail] 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 
wrote:
> [e-mail] 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.

[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  wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 9:43 PM Sam Varshavchik  wrote:
> > [e-mail] 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 -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 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

[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).

[George N. White III]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:57 PM Roger Heflin  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.

[Sam Varshavchik]

George N. White III writes:
> « HTML content follows »
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:57 PM Roger Heflin  
> <[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.