[Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-22 11:19:42

Hi. So i tried to upgrade kernel to version 3.9.6-1 and 3.9.7-1 but everytime computer stops booting at starting X session.

uname -r

3.9.5-1-ARCH

pacman -Qi linux

Name           : linux
Version        : 3.9.7-1
Description    : The linux kernel and modules
Architecture   : x86_64
URL            : http://www.kernel.org/
Licenses       : GPL2
Groups         : base
Provides       : kernel26=3.9.7
Depends On     : coreutils  linux-firmware  kmod  mkinitcpio>=0.7
Optional Deps  : crda: to set the correct wireless channels of your country
Required By    : None
Optional For   : None
Conflicts With : kernel26
Replaces       : kernel26
Installed Size : 65513.00 KiB
Packager       : Tobias Powalowski <tpowa@archlinux.org>
Build Date     : Thu Jun 20 22:50:37 2013
Install Date   : Sat Jun 22 12:49:59 2013
Install Reason : Explicitly installed
Install Script : Yes
Validated By   : None

ls -a /lib/modules

.
..
3.9.7-1-ARCH
extramodules-3.9-ARCH

end of Xorg.log

[    11.718] (II) [KMS] drm report modesetting isn't supported.
[    11.718] (EE) Screen 0 deleted because of no matching config section.
[    11.718] (II) UnloadModule: "radeon"
[    11.718] (EE) Device(s) detected, but none match those in the config file.
[    11.718] 
Fatal server error:
[    11.718] no screens found
[    11.718] (EE) 
Please consult the The X.Org Foundation support 
	 at http://wiki.x.org
 for help. 
[    11.718] (EE) Please also check the log file at "/var/log/Xorg.0.log" for additional information.
[    11.718] (EE) 
[    11.719] Server terminated with error (1). Closing log file.

I guess it can't find appropriate modules.

Last edited by funkypotatoe (2013-06-23 08:54:47)

graysky · 2013-06-22 11:21:12

Hmm... mirror out of sync? Do you require nvidia modules perhaps?

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-22 11:48:06

graysky wrote:

Hmm... mirror out of sync? Do you require nvidia modules perhaps?

I 've got this problem for about a week, everytime had to downgrade back to 3.9.5. I have ATI Radeon video card

karol · 2013-06-22 13:17:38

Jut to make sure, you are rebooting the computer, not only restarting X after kernel up- or down-grading?

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-22 13:19:08

karol wrote:

Jut to make sure, you are rebooting the computer, not only restarting X after kernel up- or down-grading?

Sure)

graysky · 2013-06-22 13:57:35

funkypotatoe wrote:

I 've got this problem for about a week, everytime had to downgrade back to 3.9.5. I have ATI Radeon video card

Which driver are you using?

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-22 14:19:21

graysky wrote:

funkypotatoe wrote:
I 've got this problem for about a week, everytime had to downgrade back to 3.9.5. I have ATI Radeon video card
Which driver are you using?

ATI open source (xf86-video-ati). But you are going in a wrong way, even if i try to boot without X, i stuck at missing wireless module. So the problem is (IMO), that system upgrades the kernel, but keeps looking for old (3.9.5) modules.

graysky · 2013-06-22 14:45:33

Do the modules in question originate from the repos or from the AUR? If it's the latter, have you recompiled them for the 3.9.7 release?

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-22 15:16:32

graysky wrote:

Do the modules in question originate from the repos or from the AUR? If it's the latter, have you recompiled them for the 3.9.7 release?

It's about two weeks old system, i have only dropbox from AUR.

ewaller · 2013-06-22 15:29:40

It sounds like your /boot partition was not mounted when you did the upgrade. /boot is usually a mount point on which your boot partition is mounted. The new kernel and initrd are written to /boot during the upgrade. If the boot partition is not mounted, then they files are written to the /boot directory, bit they never make it to your boot partition.

Are you using a separate boot partition?
Is it mounted? (check the output of mount)
If it is not mounted, are there files in that boot directory? (There should not be)
If it is mounted, unmount it and check to see if /boot is empty (if not, then it must not have been mounted at some time in the past)

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-22 15:40:39

ewaller wrote:

It sounds like your /boot partition was not mounted when you did the upgrade. /boot is usually a mount point on which your boot partition is mounted. The new kernel and initrd are written to /boot during the upgrade. If the boot partition is not mounted, then they files are written to the /boot directory, bit they never make it to your boot partition.
Are you using a separate boot partition?
Is it mounted? (check the output of mount)
If it is not mounted, are there files in that boot directory? (There should not be)
If it is mounted, unmount it and check to see if /boot is empty (if not, then it must not have been mounted at some time in the past)

mount:

/dev/sda1 on /boot type ext4 (rw,relatime,stripe=4,data=ordered)

ls -la /boot

total 20926
drwxr-xr-x  3 root root     1024 Jun 22 14:57 .
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root     4096 Jun 19 17:09 ..
-rw-r--r--  1 root root 14579845 Jun 22 14:57 initramfs-linux-fallback.img
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  3051028 Jun 22 14:57 initramfs-linux.img
drwx------  2 root root    12288 Jun 12 22:00 lost+found
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  3778528 Jun  8 09:29 vmlinuz-linux

umount /dev/sda1 & ls -la /boot

total 20924
drwxr-xr-x  3 root root     4096 Jun 12 22:09 .
drwxr-xr-x 19 root root     4096 Jun 19 17:09 ..
-rw-r--r--  1 root root 14580766 Jun 12 22:08 initramfs-linux-fallback.img
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  3051026 Jun 12 22:08 initramfs-linux.img
drwxr-xr-x  2 root root     4096 Jun 12 22:13 syslinux
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  3778528 Jun  8 09:29 vmlinuz-linux

Don't know how /boot (in unmounted state) was populated, but files are 10 days old. Anyway, i tried to upgrade to 3.9.6 second time few days ago, after unsuccessful result, a did pacman -U linux-3.9.5-1. Today after pacman -Suy, installing linux-3.9.7-1 & rebooting i stuck with the same troubles. So i did downgrade again to 3.9.5-1 (saving output first given in my first post)

Last edited by funkypotatoe (2013-06-22 15:44:50)

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-22 15:43:12

Btw, not sure if it can help, but i installed my system about two weeks ago and 3.9.5-1 was installed at that moment.

ewaller · 2013-06-22 15:50:42

Okay, it looks like /dev/sda1 is mounted as boot, and that is where your files are going; but... There should be other files in the boot partition to support whichever boot loader you are using; there aren't.

Could you post the output of sudo fdisk -l /dev/sda

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-22 16:02:33

ewaller wrote:

Okay, it looks like /dev/sda1 is mounted as boot, and that is where your files are going; but... There should be other files in the boot partition to support whichever boot loader you are using; there aren't.
Could you post the output of sudo fdisk -l /dev/sda

WARNING: fdisk GPT support is currently new, and therefore in an experimental phase. Use at your own discretion.

Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes, 976773168 sectors
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096 bytes
Disk label type: gpt


#         Start          End    Size  Type            Name
 1         2048       616447    300M  BIOS boot parti Linux filesystem
 2       616448     84502527     40G  Linux filesyste Linux filesystem
 3     84502528    976773134  425.5G  Linux filesyste Linux filesystem

/boot, "root" & /home

/dev/sda3 on /home type ext4 (rw,relatime,data=ordered)
/dev/sda1 on /boot type ext4 (rw,relatime,stripe=4,data=ordered)

ewaller · 2013-06-22 16:13:50

That all looks reasonable (except for the ugly output of fdisk; How did you create that?)

But, your listing of /boot in post 11 makes no sense. What bootloader are you using?

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-22 16:22:47

ewaller wrote:

That all looks reasonable (except for the ugly output of fdisk; How did you create that?)
But, your listing of /boot in post 11 makes no sense. What bootloader are you using?

Syslinux.
First time i bought anything with UEFI and i hate it, after spending about 6 hours fighting against ~15 options for UEFI/Legacy(compatibility mode) in my BIOS and (and bloody UEFI), reading tons of manuals and wikis, reinstalling Arch, i think 5 times every time getting messages like "Theres no disk", "Theres no system to load" i really don't remember how managed to finally get a working system.

ewaller · 2013-06-22 17:01:17

Unfortunately, I cannot help; I know nothing of UEFI and little of Syslinux. I don't understand where you are booting from, but it is not looking in /dev/sda1 for the files you need. Perhaps someone with UEFI and Syslinux experience could lend a hand here?

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-22 18:17:12

ewaller wrote:

Unfortunately, I cannot help; I know nothing of UEFI and little of Syslinux. I don't understand where you are booting from, but it is not looking in /dev/sda1 for the files you need. Perhaps someone with UEFI and Syslinux experience could lend a hand here?

You gave me an idea) I upgraded kernel to version 3.9.7, copied everything to tmp folder, unmounted /boot and copied everything over /boot at /dev/sda (root partition), where was 10 days old kernel files, rebooted and now everything works fine. So now i'm lost how my boot proccess works.

cfr · 2013-06-22 22:38:10

Are you booting UEFI or BIOS legacy?

The output from fdisk looks odd. I take it you have a GPT partition map. If so, can you post gdisk -l /dev/sda? It is possible that the oddness is a quirk of fdisk's new support for GPT (I didn't even know it had this) and I would rather trust gdisk's output.

If I had to guess, I would guess the following: you are booting in legacy mode. The type code for your boot partition is incorrect. Your boot partition was not mounted when you did the original install. In particular, it was not mounted when you installed syslinux. It is now getting mounted when you boot and is mounted when you upgrade. Hence, the upgraded kernel etc. end up on the boot partition but nothing else is there so you end up booting the older kernel from the boot directory. This was failing because the modules installed to / would not have matched the kernel in the boot directory.

One option would just be to get rid of the boot partition since it is working fine without it.

EDIT: If so, though, I am confused as I thought syslinux required the partition be marked as bootable but none of yours seem to be. However, I know little of syslinux. I am, however, confident you are not booting UEFI.

Last edited by cfr (2013-06-22 22:45:02)

borbarad · 2013-06-23 07:23:52

From the first look he's missing an EFI-Partition, I guess that's why he tried to use syslinux.

Easiest way to to a normal EFI-Layout would be, format sda1 as vfat, flag it as boot, mount it as /boot/efi, and then install grub-efi-x86_64 according to the wiki.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Gr … ot_files_2

Last edited by borbarad (2013-06-23 07:25:20)

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-23 07:38:51

cfr wrote:

Are you booting UEFI or BIOS legacy?
The output from fdisk looks odd. I take it you have a GPT partition map. If so, can you post gdisk -l /dev/sda? It is possible that the oddness is a quirk of fdisk's new support for GPT (I didn't even know it had this) and I would rather trust gdisk's output.
If I had to guess, I would guess the following: you are booting in legacy mode. The type code for your boot partition is incorrect. Your boot partition was not mounted when you did the original install. In particular, it was not mounted when you installed syslinux. It is now getting mounted when you boot and is mounted when you upgrade. Hence, the upgraded kernel etc. end up on the boot partition but nothing else is there so you end up booting the older kernel from the boot directory. This was failing because the modules installed to / would not have matched the kernel in the boot directory.
One option would just be to get rid of the boot partition since it is working fine without it.
EDIT: If so, though, I am confused as I thought syslinux required the partition be marked as bootable but none of yours seem to be. However, I know little of syslinux. I am, however, confident you are not booting UEFI.

Yes, you're right. After few tries to install Arch in UEFI mode i switched to legacy mode, and after few more tries i finally got it working with GPT partitioned disk.

gdisk:

GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 0.8.6

Partition table scan:
  MBR: protective
  BSD: not present
  APM: not present
  GPT: present

Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT.
Disk /dev/sda: 976773168 sectors, 465.8 GiB
Logical sector size: 512 bytes
Disk identifier (GUID): 4F23CECB-B893-49C3-8337-672CCDE2A7F4
Partition table holds up to 128 entries
First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 976773134
Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries
Total free space is 2014 sectors (1007.0 KiB)

Number  Start (sector)    End (sector)  Size       Code  Name
   1            2048          616447   300.0 MiB   EF02  Linux filesystem
   2          616448        84502527   40.0 GiB    8300  Linux filesystem
   3        84502528       976773134   425.5 GiB   8300  Linux filesystem

To test if you have booted into UEFI mode check if directory /sys/firmware/efi has been created

total 0
drwxr-xr-x  4 root root 0 Jun 23 09:57 .
dr-xr-xr-x 13 root root 0 Jun 23 00:20 ..
drwxr-xr-x  4 root root 0 Jun 23 09:57 acpi
drwxr-xr-x 21 root root 0 Jun 23 09:57 memmap

Last edited by funkypotatoe (2013-06-23 07:58:16)

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-23 07:53:38

I moved to Syslinux because in one of my tries i installed Arch with Grub, but after reboot it stuck at "Grub loading" screen and i discovered Grub is needed some more packages or settings for GPT to work (i honestly don't remember), and i was fed up with all of this, so i simply reinstalled once more with Syslinux. Why i choose GPT? Arch installation guide says:

GUID Partition Table (GPT) is an alternative, contemporary partitioning style. It is intended to replace the old Master Boot Record (MBR) system. GPT has several advantages over MBR, which has quirks dating back to MS-DOS times. With recent developments to the formatting tools fdisk (MBR) and gdisk (GPT), it is equally easy to use GPT or MBR and get maximum performance.
The choice basically boils down to this:
If using GRUB legacy as the bootloader, one must use MBR.
To dual-boot with Windows, one must use MBR.
A special exception to this rule: dual-booting Windows 64-bit using UEFI instead of BIOS, one must use GPT.
If none of the above apply, choose freely between GPT and MBR. Since GPT is more modern, it is recommended in this case.

Is there any command like "grub-install" for Syslinux to simply reinstall it to /boot partition ?

borbarad · 2013-06-23 08:27:18

EF02 legacy bios partiton.

And afaik grub-efi doesn't need extra packages.
Just an vfat partition with boot flag (or EF00 with gfdisk)

mkdir -p /boot/efi
mount -t vfat /dev/sdXY /boot/efi
grub-install --target=x86_64-efi --efi-directory=/boot/efi --bootloader-id=arch_grub --boot-directory=/boot/efi/EFI --recheck
mkdir -p /boot/efi/EFI/grub/locale
cp /usr/share/locale/en\@quot/LC_MESSAGES/grub.mo /boot/grub/locale/en.mo

after that it should work with grub (you may have to select arch_grub as default in the "bios" setup)

At least it always worked for me.....

Syslinux:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/sy … ic_Install

And if I read https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/syslinux correct it should use the kernel on the syslinux partition that was statet in syslinux.cfg

Last edited by borbarad (2013-06-23 08:30:37)

funkypotatoe · 2013-06-23 08:53:15

I reinstalled syslinux package (after making sure /boot is mounted on /dev/sda1), ran "syslinux-install_update" (from installation guide), set up syslinux.cfg (changed Menu Label to make sure which of configs is used during boot), and everything worked fine. Tested with downgrading to 3.9.6: after reboot "uname -r" and "pacman -Qi linux" showing same output.

Thanks everyone) will mark as solved.

cfr · 2013-06-23 23:01:54

The type code for your boot partition is incorrect. It is not a BIOS boot partition. You do not need one of those for syslinux and, if you did, it would not need a filesystem and would be much smaller (1-2MB). As far as I know, you would only use that with grub with GPT and bios booting.

Arch Linux

#1 2013-06-22 11:19:42

[Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#2 2013-06-22 11:21:12

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#3 2013-06-22 11:48:06

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#4 2013-06-22 13:17:38

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#5 2013-06-22 13:19:08

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#6 2013-06-22 13:57:35

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#7 2013-06-22 14:19:21

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#8 2013-06-22 14:45:33

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#9 2013-06-22 15:16:32

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#10 2013-06-22 15:29:40

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#11 2013-06-22 15:40:39

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#12 2013-06-22 15:43:12

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#13 2013-06-22 15:50:42

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#14 2013-06-22 16:02:33

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#15 2013-06-22 16:13:50

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#16 2013-06-22 16:22:47

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#17 2013-06-22 17:01:17

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#18 2013-06-22 18:17:12

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#19 2013-06-22 22:38:10

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#20 2013-06-23 07:23:52

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#21 2013-06-23 07:38:51

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#22 2013-06-23 07:53:38

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#23 2013-06-23 08:27:18

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#24 2013-06-23 08:53:15

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

#25 2013-06-23 23:01:54

Re: [Solved] Uname doesn't changes after linux-3.9.5 upgrade

Board footer