2.2.0 report on 10.14, 10.11 & 10.9

Developer discussions.

2.2.0 report on 10.14, 10.11 & 10.9

Postby nodarkthings » Tue Nov 28, 2023 2:37 am

Thanks Mr Lundman for keeping old builds up! ;)

Here's what I've found in my brief trials (tested only mount/unmount, read/write):
- 10.11 and 10.14: ok
- 10.9 : still no automount (a bunch of "Throttling respawn: Will start in x seconds" in Console at startup) ; manual mount and unmount ok (but message in Finder "unreadable disk" although it looks like working ok).
Capture d’écran 2023-11-28 à 11.17.28.png
Capture d’écran 2023-11-28 à 11.17.28.png (36.36 KiB) Viewed 23335 times


N.B.: my test zpool have been created with v2.1.6, where it behaved about the same.
nodarkthings
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:32 am

Re: 2.2.0 report on 10.14, 10.11 & 10.9

Postby nodarkthings » Wed Dec 06, 2023 3:14 pm

@lundman
About 10.9 issue:
I've first tried juggling with FSProbeOrder values in /Library/Filesystems/zfs.fs/Info.plist to no avail.
Then I had the idea to put zfs.fs in /System/Library/Filesystems where it used to be in version one and no more warning message!
I had a crash, though, while copying things in the dataset but after a second reboot, it seems to work ok...
I have no clue about how to "replace zfsutil with shell script that returns RECOGNISED" as you suggest, can you tell me exactly what I should write in that script, please?
nodarkthings
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:32 am

Re: 2.2.0 report on 10.14, 10.11 & 10.9

Postby lundman » Wed Dec 06, 2023 9:18 pm

So in case it isnt clear, the popup that says "not recognised" is harmless, it is just saying it doesn't know how to mount it for you. So nobody
claimed to match it (ie, zfs failed to say "oh that one is mine!")

/System/Library/Filesystems ? Oh hhmm right yes, so back in those days - that could be it actually. I can probably manually move it there during build, assuming i remember each time :)
User avatar
lundman
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:05 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: 2.2.0 report on 10.14, 10.11 & 10.9

Postby lundman » Wed Dec 06, 2023 11:44 pm

Rolled out a new 10.9 for 2.2.2, i rsynced over zfs.fs in case it will help as part of the pkg.
User avatar
lundman
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:05 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: 2.2.0 report on 10.14, 10.11 & 10.9

Postby nodarkthings » Thu Dec 07, 2023 3:45 am

Great! So I confirm that putting zfs.fs in /System/Library/Filesystems removes the warning, then all seemed to go well with small files and folders until I tried to copy a 760 MB folder: KP each time.
- just to be sure, I copied the same folder in 10.14: no issue. Then coming back to 10.9: KP when trying to delete it.
- I reinstalled v2.2.0 (and removed /System/Library/Filesystems/zfs.fs) and had the same KP the first time, then after a second reboot, I succeeded copying that folder and deleting it, twice... :?
Here are the DiagnosticReports I had with v2.2.2:
Archive.zip
(14.02 KiB) Downloaded 721 times
nodarkthings
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:32 am

Re: 2.2.0 report on 10.14, 10.11 & 10.9

Postby nodarkthings » Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:12 am

... I've tried the same things with v2.1.6: no KP!
Instead, folder icons won't show :( (they do in v2.2.2)
I then came back to v2.2.2 and upgraded the pool. After that, same KP as before.
nodarkthings
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:32 am

Re: 2.2.0 report on 10.14, 10.11 & 10.9

Postby lundman » Thu Dec 07, 2023 4:14 pm

Could you panic with "keepsyms=1" for me so I can see the function names? I just need this part:

Code: Select all
Backtrace (CPU 0), Frame : Return Address
0xffffff811371bc20 : 0xffffff800ba22f79
0xffffff811371bca0 : 0xffffff7f8d1e99c2
0xffffff811371bec0 : 0xffffff800bbde73a
0xffffff811371bf30 : 0xffffff7f8d1e18f2
0xffffff811371bf80 : 0xffffff7f8d087e0c
0xffffff811371bfb0 : 0xffffff800bad7607
      Kernel Extensions in backtrace:


but with symbol names instead.
User avatar
lundman
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:05 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: 2.2.0 report on 10.14, 10.11 & 10.9

Postby nodarkthings » Fri Dec 08, 2023 3:21 am

I hope I've done it well. :D
Code: Select all
Backtrace (CPU 0), Frame : Return Address
0xffffff8128cb3c20 : 0xffffff8020c22f79 mach_kernel : _panic + 0xc9
0xffffff8128cb3ca0 : 0xffffff7fa24f29c2 org.openzfsonosx.zfs : _zfs_findernotify_callback + 0x302
0xffffff8128cb3ec0 : 0xffffff8020dde73a mach_kernel : _vfs_iterate + 0x10a
0xffffff8128cb3f30 : 0xffffff7fa24ea8f2 org.openzfsonosx.zfs : _zfs_findernotify_thread + 0xe2
0xffffff8128cb3f80 : 0xffffff7fa2390e0c org.openzfsonosx.zfs : _spl_thread_setup + 0x21c
0xffffff8128cb3fb0 : 0xffffff8020cd7607 mach_kernel : _call_continuation + 0x17
      Kernel Extensions in backtrace:
         org.openzfsonosx.zfs(2.2.2)[3BFB241E-89EE-391D-B0B3-D6F5BDD1C505]@0xffffff7fa237e000->0xffffff7fa2ab4fff
            dependency: com.apple.iokit.IOStorageFamily(1.9)[9B09B065-7F11-3241-B194-B72E5C23548B]@0xffffff7fa12d3000


Thanks again for your dedication!
nodarkthings
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:32 am

Re: 2.2.0 report on 10.14, 10.11 & 10.9

Postby lundman » Fri Dec 08, 2023 3:21 pm

zfs_findernotify_callback ?

That is interesting, and annoyingly irrelevant.

Code: Select all
      Summary: zfs`zfs_findernotify_callback + 770 [inlined] zfs_enter at zfs_vnops_osx.c:208
               zfs`zfs_findernotify_callback + 770 at zfs_vnops_osx.c:208
 name = "zfs_enter", decl = zfs_znode_impl.h:147

        if (!zfsvfs ||
            (mp != zfsvfs->z_vfs))
                return (SET_ERROR(VFS_RETURNED));
        /* Guard against unmount */
->        if (zfs_enter(zfsvfs, FTAG) != 0)
                return (SET_ERROR(VFS_RETURNED));


So, zfs isn't NULL, it happens to match that the position of z_vfs points to our mp, but it's not actually a ZFS mount?
User avatar
lundman
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:05 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: 2.2.0 report on 10.14, 10.11 & 10.9

Postby nodarkthings » Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:06 pm

Hi!
Got some interesting news:
To be on the safe side, I've created a zpool on a full internal drive (my former test zpool was a slice on a USB dock...)
I wasn't able to make it KP despite repetitively copying/deleting big folders! :shock:
So the issue is either because of using a slice or a USB drive — or both.
Strange that it was not crashing with v2.1.6. :?

EDIT: just to be clear, the test zpool on the USB dock doesn't KP 10.11 nor 10.14.
nodarkthings
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:32 am

Next

Return to OpenZFS on OS X Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests