On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:35:16 +0100 Toby Slight <tobysli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 September 2015 at 18:09, Chris Cappuccio <ch...@nmedia.net> wrote: >> Sounds like a bug in the brand new EFI boot blocks which affects your uefi >> firmware and not some others. It seems all of your tests are pointing in >> the >> same direction, they are not a result of differences in the kernels, >> rather, >> they are a result of some bug or bugs in the efiblocks. > > Do you think it's a efiblock bug for both issues (the usb installer kernel > not loading 90% of the time AND an encrypted install not fully booting)? > Why do you think the un-encrypted install and bsd.rd from an encrypted > install boot without issue? Aren't the same efiblocks used in each case?
I'm not sure but I'm thinking the efi boot cannot load the kernel properly from the disk. There may be a bug in reading disk or handling memory. Differences of bsd, bsd.rd or softraid is changing the broken part in the kernel. Can you try http://yasuoka.net/~yasuoka/BOOTX64.EFI this and "machine test" on boot prompt? It will show 0 blocksize=512 like this. Disk number and blocksize. Can you also try gzipped kernels (gzip /bsd, then "boot bsd.gz")? I suspect loading the kernel will always fail because the gzipped file has a checksum. --yasuoka
