Bug 191488 - initrd getting overwritten at current load address?
initrd getting overwritten at current load address?
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 234681
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: qemu (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Hans de Goede
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-05-12 09:13 EDT by Mark McLoughlin
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-04-01 04:14:35 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Mark McLoughlin 2006-05-12 09:13:28 EDT
With latest rawhide qemu (qemu-0.8.0-6.fc6) and kernel (2.6.16-1.2200_FC6) if
you try to run qemu with -kernel and -initrd, you get an error like:

checking if image is initramfs...it isn't(bad gzip magic numbers); looks like an
initrd

Sticking in some debugging printks it seems that the contents of the initramfs
are being overwritten at some point with a load address of 0x400000. I tried
increasing the load address and it eventually worked at 0x800000.

This post to qemu-devel confirms the issue:

http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg04606.html

However, that reporter indicated that it was the kernel size that was the issue
for him whereas in our case the kernel fits happily between 0x100000 and
0x400000, so I'm not sure what's actually causing the overrun here.
Comment 1 Hans de Goede 2006-11-14 18:00:11 EST
All supported releases (FC-5, FC-6 and devel) currently have qemu-0.8.2, can you
retest with this version and report back here?

Thanks!
Comment 2 Hans de Goede 2007-03-18 15:23:56 EDT
Repeating myself (PING):

All supported releases (FC-5, FC-6 and devel) currently have qemu-0.8.2, can you
retest with this version and report back here?

Thanks!

Comment 3 Hans de Goede 2007-04-01 04:14:35 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 234681 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.