[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#608538: btrfs root installation results in initramfs busybox prompt

* Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> [Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 09:03:37PM +0000]:
> On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 16:37 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I hope this can be dealt with, it seems to be the only remaining
> > issue in getting Debian to support btrfs root filesystems. 

> > This is easily reproducible, I installed from a recent daily build
> > netinst, put /boot on ext3 and / on btrfs and same problem on boot.

> > The problem is that btrfs depends on libcrc32c, which demand loads
> > any of several crc32c implementations, depending on hardware. Those
> > modules are not declared as dependencies, so initramfs-tools does not
> > include them.

> > So, another way to see the same problem:

> > root@gnu:/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-686/kernel/crypto>mv crc32c.ko ~  
> > root@gnu:/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-686/kernel/crypto>insmod ../lib/libcrc32c.ko 
> > insmod: error inserting '../lib/libcrc32c.ko': -1 Unknown symbol in module
> > root@gnu:/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-686/kernel/crypto>mv ~/crc32c.ko .
> > root@gnu:/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-686/kernel/crypto>insmod ../lib/libcrc32c.ko
> > root@gnu:/lib/modules/2.6.32-5-686/kernel/crypto>

> > So, at least a workaround would be for the initramfs to have crc32c added to
> > it whenever libcrc32c is. Attached patch just adds it to the base modules
> > list; since btrfs is already there that seems like an ok quick fix.

> This is stupid.  Without a declared module dependency, a MODULES=dep
> configuration will remain broken.  I think this needs to be fixed in the
> kernel instead.

> > Note that it would probably be better to try first loading hardware optimised
> > versions like crc32c-intel, and only load crc32c if they fail to load.

> I believe that happens automatically, as the hardware-optimised modules
> provide an alias of 'crc32c'.

> > (BTW, this bug probably also breaks netbooting with certian ethernet cards
> > whose drivers also use libcrc32c.)

> Right.

Thanks for showing up, would be nice to see this fixed.

I just want to make sure you're aware of my bugreport #602254
(which Joey seemed to have noticed already according to its
BTS history).

Ben, do you think this could be fixed at the kernel side?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: