On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Kyle Evans <kevans91_at_ksu.edu> wrote: > Hello! > > I recently purchased an older Thinkpad Yoga 11e and now I've installed > 10.3RC2 to it. It appears that the Security Chip feature causes > problems in attempting to boot 10.3RC2 (and a slightly older -CURRENT, > as well, but re-tested with 10.3RC2 just for the sake of > verification). The following output is written when attempting to boot > from the `amd64-uefi-memstick.img`: > > == > >>> FreeBSD EFI boot block > Loader path: /boot/loader.efi > LoadImage failed with error 2 > HandleProtocol failed with error 2 > StartImage failed with error 2 > panic: Load failed > > == > > Rebooting and disabling the security chip fixes this, and everything > runs along nicely. Re-enabling the Security Chip after 10.3RC2 is > installed and attempting a boot yields the slightly different (while > slightly expected, given the above, but I'm adding this anyways): > > == > >>> FreeBSD EFI boot block > Loader Path: /boot/loader.efi > > Initializing modules: ZFS UFS > Probing 4 block devices. . . . . .* done > ZFS found the following pools: zroot > UFS found no partitions > Failed to load image provided by ZFS, size: 2033504512, (2) > panic: No bootable partitions found! > > == > > Is this expected behavior? I was under the impression that the > "Security Chip" was largely unrelated to anything in the boot process. Hi, This might be unlikely, but what are the odds that devpath_last (sys/boot/efi/boot1/boot1.c:135) isn't quite returning the correct device path to be passed to bs->LoadImage() (sys/boot/efi/boot1/boot1.c:405) in the case that a TPM chip is present? This would seem to line up with the EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER error that LoadImage is returning -- especially given that the ZFS bits here are correctly enumerating my device's pool. Thanks, Kyle EvansReceived on Tue Jul 26 2016 - 21:16:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:07 UTC