[syslinux] Boot prompt ignored

[Ady]

> On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 09:56:59PM +0300, Ady via Syslinux wrote:
> > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 11:58:41AM +0200, Alexander Freudenberg via Syslinux wrote:
> > > Using a boot prompt without a menu makes Syslinux 6.03-6 booting the
> > > default label only, ignoring the label that was entered. Auto completion
> > > of the defined labels works, though. Can anyone confirm this?
> > >
> >
> > I compiled binaries from the (hopefully, temporarily) "revert-9acbffd"
> > branch from GeneC. The building environment is using old dependencies
> > (i.e. not recent versions).
> >
> > With the resulting binaries, the aforementioned strange behavior was
> > _not_ replicated -- _please_, do not just take this as valid / true;
> > this same test _must_ be performed by others so to corroborate this
> > result.
> >
> > But, using binaries from Fedora, 6.03-6.fc24, the problematic behavior
> > _can_ be replicated.
> >
> > It has also been replicated by at least one additional user of
> > ArchLinux, by using binaries from 6.03-6 (which is probably the package
> > that was used by the original reporter).
> >
> > Additionally, at least one Debian Sid user is reporting the same
> > unwanted behavior with 6.03+dfsg-12. Although the problem is not seen
> > with  6.03+dfsg-11, I would not suggest that Debian should revert back.
> > but rather that (additional) patches for gcc5+ compatibility should be
> > also applied to Debian's packages.
> >
> > The abnormal behavior cannot be replicated with official 6.03 pre-built
> > binaries downloaded from kernel.org.
> >
> > I have not bothered to test with 6.04-pre1 (as I would consider its
> > binaries a waste of time, after they have failed me already in other
> > tests).
> >
> > I should add that typing-in either labels or any other command, the
> > result is the same: only / always the default command (label) is
> > executed when pressing ENTER. To be accurate, I have not actually
> > tested whether it is really the DEFAULT command, or the first LABEL,
> > that is being executed.
> >
> > So, this seems to be some environmental / building issue -- again,
> > please do not take this statement as valid / true unless these tests
> > are replicated by others.
> >
> > Considering that most Linux distributions that are already using some
> > package based on Syslinux 6.03 are also using relatively-updated
> > versions of its dependencies (e.g. gcc5+, binutils 2.23+ and so on), I
> > am wondering whether some of the pending problems related to makefiles
> > and/or ld files could be the source of this unwanted behavior.
> >
> > For instance, "HIDDEN was added to ld in binutils version 2.23", and
> > the current Syslinux source code (both, 6.03 and current git master
> > head) is not using the necessary code to cope with this "HIDDEN".
> > Perhaps it is time to add some kind of conditional code in Syslinux's
> > "*.ld" files , depending on the version of binutils, so binaries could
> > be functional in both cases (binutils prior and/or post/equal to
> > version 2.23).
> >
> > Of course this is just an example, and it might not be the culprit of
> > this problem. Yet, the basic concept might be relevant for whatever
> > might be generating this issue.
> >
> > Another possible issue that might come to mind: building with/without
> > "CFLAGS += -fno-PIE" or something of that sort.
> >
> > These are wild uneducated guesses; so much so that calling it a "guess"
> > might already be too much. I hope knowledgeable developers will find a
> > solution.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ady.
> >
> 
> Turns out, the undesired behaviour must be somewhat specific to the
> build in Arch Linux' repository.
> 
> After building Syslinux from the official source, it boots any label
> entered during boot prompt correctly. (I have not tested removing the
> DEFAULT statement, though)
> 
> 
> Thank you for your help - Alex
 
My emails tend to be lengthier than others, in an _attempt_ to be 
clear, especially to common users whose natural language is other than 
English.

Unfortunately, some of my emails seem to be ignored.

As I already reported, this is not specific to ArchLinux, as it can be 
also found in Debian (Testing) and Fedora 24 too (and very possibly in 
other distros rebuilding 6.03-based binaries). There are also bug 
reports already opened in some of these distros, but they do not 
include any info that we don't know already.

This means that current Syslinux-related packages based on 6.03 are 
partially useless, as the only thing that can be successfully achieved 
is to boot the default command.

I also sent (off-list) a bootable floppy image to GeneC, using binaries 
from Fedora 24, package version "6.03-6" (coincidentally), and a simple 
syslinux.cfg, replicating the behavior.

To be more accurate, the problem is not about non-default labels, but 
rather that parsing _any_ command (at least in CLI) will fail, 
executing the default command instead.

My guess would be that rebuilding the "revert-9acbffd" (unofficial) 
branch but using updated binutils and gcc versions would also generate 
the same (wrong) behavior. Being a guess, I could be completely wrong; 
whichever the result, it would narrow down the source of the problem.

Expecting this issue to be resolved by each distro would be a mistake 
and unrealistic; this needs to be investigated and resolved in the 
upstream code.

Regards,
Ady.

> _______________________________________________
> Syslinux mailing list
> Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com
> Unsubscribe or set options at:
> http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux
>