-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bcachefs-tools: 1.7.0-unstable-2024-05-09 -> 1.9.2 #321055
Conversation
Thanks, but please pause this for a bit, the v1.9.0 tag is a bit messy. The |
Indeed the test fails, here's the log for reference
(finished: must succeed: echo password | bcachefs unlock -k session /dev/vdb1, in 0.70 seconds)
machine: must succeed: echo password | mount -t bcachefs /dev/vdb1:/dev/vdb2 /tmp/mnt
machine # [ 6.710377] dhcpcd[664]: eth0: Router Advertisement from fe80::2
machine # [ 6.710950] dhcpcd[664]: eth0: adding address fec0::5054:ff:fe12:3456/64
machine # [ 6.712111] dhcpcd[664]: eth0: adding route to fec0::/64
machine # [ 6.712579] dhcpcd[664]: eth0: adding default route via fe80::2
machine: output: ERROR - bcachefs::commands::mount: Fatal error: failed to verify passphrase
I'll mark it as draft for now, although this works in my unencrypted system, merging this would probably break encrypted or more complex setups. |
There's likely going to be a v1.9.1 shortly 😅 |
v1.9.1 is tagged now btw. :) |
3eff5e1
to
bc0149a
Compare
|
Looks like it fails multi installer test, @tmuehlbacher would there be a upstream commit fixing this soon? I remember Kent said this is harmless, ie. won't eat your data. But since this test fails, I am hesitant to merge this as this might cause other issues. @onny would love if you could test this with encrypted root! |
simple and multi both fail. Huh, it's stuck at writing the hardware-configuration.nix file? => This is fixed by adding But then it failed for me locally at a later stage verifying the nix store. Not sure about that yet. I have been using the flake from upstream as an overlay on my system for a bit and can still boot at least. |
Good catch! not sure how I missed it. |
bc0149a
to
2460392
Compare
Ok so I have a fix for these test failures now. The tests work if you add this: diff --git a/nixos/tests/installer.nix b/nixos/tests/installer.nix
index 3f57a64333dd..d3e870f7922a 100644
--- a/nixos/tests/installer.nix
+++ b/nixos/tests/installer.nix
@@ -1144,6 +1144,7 @@ in {
createPartitions = ''
installer.succeed(
+ "modprobe bcachefs",
"flock /dev/vda parted --script /dev/vda -- mklabel msdos"
+ " mkpart primary ext2 1M 100MB" # /boot
+ " mkpart primary linux-swap 100M 1024M" # swap
@@ -1213,6 +1214,7 @@ in {
createPartitions = ''
installer.succeed(
+ "modprobe bcachefs",
"flock /dev/vda parted --script /dev/vda -- mklabel msdos"
+ " mkpart primary ext2 1M 100MB" # /boot
+ " mkpart primary linux-swap 100M 1024M" # swap
I am not sure why this is needed now and if that's a problem or normal. Without explicitly loading bcachefs, the mount succeeds still but then the fs cannot be used in any way. It appears that nixos-generate-config just blocks forever trying to write to a file inside of the fs. I was also sidetracked by something else: I have
Here is the full log for |
Ideally, issues like these should be fixed upstream, unless we are doing something very wrong with our testing suite. |
remove already merged upstream patches
2460392
to
fbe749d
Compare
@ofborg eval |
Result of 1 package built:
|
The issue was with and Ofborg suggests the installer tests are succeeding as well. As such I have no reason to hold this further. |
Awesome. Can’t wait to give this another try when I travel back home. Good work! |
Description of changes
Things done
nix.conf
? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxed
sandbox = true
nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD"
. Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/
)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.