On a Fedora aarch64 system with a physical display (or a VM with an emulated one), if plymouth is not installed, then even when booting with parameter `console=tty0`, no boot messages are shown on the monitor. This includes the decryption prompt for any encrypted partition; the prompt is shown on the serial console instead. This has been the case for a very long time, it seems, but we only recently noticed because we stopped installing plymouth in non-graphical installs by default (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933378 for more on that). I'm proposing this as a blocker as a violation of Basic criterion "A system installed without a graphical package set must boot to a state where it is possible to log in through at least one of the default virtual consoles" footnote "In all of the above cases, if any system partitions were encrypted as part of the installation, the boot process must prompt for the passphrase(s) and correctly unlock the partition(s) when provided with the correct passphrase(s)".
Alper Nebi Yasak (added to cc) proposed a patch series for this last year, though it seems to have not received a single reply: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/44156595-0eee-58da-4376-fd25b634d21b@gmail.com/T/
(As I wrote on the other thread, there is a v2 of my patch [1] with some replies.) [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-serial/20200430161438.17640-1-alpernebiyasak@gmail.com/T/
> if plymouth is not installed, then even when booting with parameter `console=tty0`, no boot messages are shown on the monitor. Just to make sure, are you putting tty0 as the last console= parameter on the kernel cmdline? What does /proc/consoles look like? IIRC, it should have tty0 as the first entry and with (C) if it's the preferred console.
"Just to make sure, are you putting tty0 as the last console= parameter on the kernel cmdline?" Yes, there aren't any others. "What does /proc/consoles look like?" Don't know offhand, but I'll get a test to check.
This is what /proc/consoles looks like: tty0 -WU (EC p ) 4:1 ttyAMA0 -W- (E p a) 204:64
+1 / -5 in https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/312 , marking rejected. Adding commonbugs flag.
> This is what /proc/consoles looks like: > > tty0 -WU (EC p ) 4:1 > ttyAMA0 -W- (E p a) 204:64 Then, my patch would not really help here as this is the intended result after that patch (but without the need to pass console=tty0 explicitly). I don't know why boot messages wouldn't show up on tty0 in this case.
I wonder if this is a systemd issue, where systemd somehow prefers the serial-console for asking for the diskcrypt passwd. Adam, if you drop the "quiet" from the kernel commandline then where do the kernel messages get logged ? It also might be interesting to try and disable fbcon deferral, by adding: "fbcon=nodefer" to the kernel commandline. I would not expect that to change much, but maybe systemd detects the console is a dummy-console and that causes it to use the serial-console instead ?
https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/642 is a PR to put plymouth back in core to avoid this.
As we missed the freeze, I'm proposing this as a Final FE. I do think it would make sense to put plymouth back for final, it resolves this and is more in line with how we shipped all previous releases so it should be a safe change.
+4 in https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/345 , marking accepted.
setting POST per #c9.
OK, so putting plymouth back in seems to have worked, per recent openQA results. I'm dropping priority to low and clearing F34 FE status. I won't close the bug as the bug, as described, still exists - if you *don't* have plymouth, you don't get kernel output. But we've worked around it for most practical cases.
Adam, This sounds a lot like the question I posed to the test mailing list. In my case, plymouth is installed. tty broken after "latest" upgrade The problem happens with or without "nomodeset" in boot cmdline. fc35-bash 5.1 ~# cat /proc/consoles tty0 -WU (EC p ) 4:1 I'll try console=tty0 and report. George...
Unless you're running on aarch64, no, this is not the same bug.
Adam, Not running aarch64... x86_64. A lot of similarities in perceived behavior though. Regards, George...
It's not the same bug. Perception is not always the same thing as reality...
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 34 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 34 on 2022-06-07. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of '34'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' to a later Fedora Linux version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora Linux 34 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior to this bug being closed.
Fedora Linux 34 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2022-06-07. Fedora Linux 34 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.