On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:01 AM Ryan Harper wrote: > > * dann frazier [2021-03-18 16:30]: > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 12:25 PM Ryan Harper wrote: > > > > > > * dann frazier [2021-03-18 12:11]: > > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:25 AM Ryan Harper wrote: > > > > > > > > > > * dann frazier [2021-03-17 20:30]: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:05 AM Ryan Harper wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) flash-kernel could get installed post-divert. In that case, > > > > > > flash-kernel's own postinst will cause it to run and then fail. This > > > > > > happens today if you start with a cloud image w/o flash-kernel > > > > > > pre-baked because Ubuntu's kernel recommends flash-kernel, causing it > > > > > > to be installed along with the kernel. Official cloud images happen to > > > > > > > > > > Hrm, so if we take a squashfs rootfs (with no flash-kernel present) > > > > > chroot into it and install the linux-image-generic package pulling in > > > > > flash-kernel this fails due to postinst of flash-kernel expecting > > > > > initramfs to already be generated? This doesn't seem like a curtin bug. > > > > > > > > If done so in a chroot that exposes the kernel interfaces (/proc & > > > > /sys) that claim to be hardware that requires the initramfs to be > > > > post-processed, yes. > > > > > > Maybe I'm missing something but if I install linux-image-generic > > > it populates /boot with vmlinuz-$version (and a few more things) > > > and /lib/modules/$version and the kernels postinst will invoke > > > update-initramfs. The /boot/initrd.img-$version is *generated* at > > > that time during the kernel's postinstall > > > > > > Now, in the arm case IIUC, the kernel package has a dep on flash-kernel > > > being present as it's "needed" to generate the initramfs ... so how can > > > flash-kernel's postinst *fail* if it is the tool that's generating said > > > initramfs file? > > > > What flash-kernel does is generate wrapped versions of *exisiting* > > vmlinuz and initrd.img files. It doesn't generate those files, rather > > post-processes them. > > The kernel doesn't depend on flash-kernel, it just recommends it like > > it does GRUB on x86. > > Yes, I get that but it still looks like a packaging bug if dpkg installs > flash-kernel first and /boot is not populated with existing initrds; one > could easily see this happen in a debootstrap. Given that a failure to produce a wrapped initrd could cause a system to become unbootable, it does seem to me like a hard failure here is warranted. But, perhaps we could provide a "shhhh... it's ok, just chill" mechanism. Maybe a FLASH_KERNEL_SKIP=1 environment variable? > Is the "liveness" of the chroot what's tripping up flash-kernel? We > currently run inside a chroot which mounts /dev /proc /run and /sys; we > could drop those but it also seems reasonable to have flash-kernel not > expect existing initrds? Certainly a non-live chroot can avoid this by leading f-k to believe it does not recognize the system. In fact, ISTR bind mounting certain files in build chroots to trick f-k into doing nothing. -dann > -- > You received this bug notification because you are a bug assignee. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1918427 > > Title: > curtin: install flash-kernel in arm64 UEFI unexpected > > To manage notifications about this bug go to: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/cloud-images/+bug/1918427/+subscriptions > > Launchpad-Notification-Type: bug > Launchpad-Bug: product=cloud-images; status=Confirmed; importance=Undecided; assignee=None; > Launchpad-Bug: distribution=ubuntu; sourcepackage=curtin; component=main; status=Confirmed; importance=Undecided; assignee=None; > Launchpad-Bug: distribution=ubuntu; sourcepackage=linux; component=main; status=In Progress; importance=Undecided;