- Package:
- debian-installer
- Source:
- debian-installer
- Description:
- Debian Installer documentation
- Submitter:
- etkaar
- Date:
- 2021-01-21 18:00:03 UTC
- Severity:
- important
- Tags:
Good Morning! I noticed a strange bug with the debian installer when I wanted to install a virtual machine (KVM) using virt-install. I use MacVTap in VEPA mode for networking. While the host would create an interface such like "macvtap[n]@eth0", the VM gets an interface such like "ens1" when using the e1000 NIC. The fact, which lets me think that it is actually a bug of the installer, is, that a) the network works without any problem in all VMs which are installed and b) that I can configure the network manually, but *only* using the shell, for instance: The bug is, that the installer - e.g. even if I, after DHCP has failed, try to manually configure it using the installer (not the shell) - always resets the link "ens1" to a state where the link is not up: Expected is "<BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP>", but the interface is always set to down by the installer. If I enable it by typing "ip link set ens1 up" it gets up and I can configure the network in the shell. I even tried it with a preseed file, but whatever I try, the interface is always down and so it is impossible to configure it within the installation. # # libvirt VM configuration # <interface type='direct'> <mac address='52:54:00:5c:d3:e7'/> <source dev='eth0' mode='vepa'/> <model type='e1000'/> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x09' slot='0x01' function='0x0'/> </interface> # # Preseed (which also does not work) # d-i netcfg/choose_interface select ens1 d-i netcfg/disable_autoconfig boolean true d-i netcfg/get_ipaddress string 255.255.8.243 d-i netcfg/get_netmask string 255.255.255.248 d-i netcfg/get_gateway string 255.255.8.1 d-i netcfg/get_nameservers string 8.8.8.8 d-i netcfg/confirm_static boolean true Kind Regards, --etkaar
Control: tag -1 moreinfo Moin I think it is an interresting problem, not convinced about a "bug". ??? (the triple question marks are for expressing my "Realy?", please elaborate what is going on. Yes, my request could be recieved as "vague", do know that is being transmitted as "open") And after configuring is actual traffic possible? If so, provide some proof. I'm not sure if that is correct. The "preseed stuff" is for later. Regards Geert Stappers
:-) Yes And the example introduced confusion. I have seen the video. I have the succesfull ping. Also seen that installer menu is used. Thing I would have done, is switch to another terminal As far as I know does have QEMU support for sending ALT-F2 and ALT-F1. But there is no ALT-F2 on serial line connections. Anyway, there is some networking possible. (my conclusion follows) Mostly for keeping options on what to explore open. Acknowledge on that. Do know that we should avoid comparing apples and oranges. Thing I slightly want to warn about, is that debian-installer not the very same thing as a full blown system. For getting focus on the network problem. d-i without any preseed stuff should be able to do DHCP I can't spot any holes it (due lack of indepth knowlegde) My conclusion: Some how doesn't detect d-i link on the NIC Advice: Further debugging My approach would be: * Temporary drop on the wish of a serial console * no preseed stuff yet * `virt-install` with having multiple VT [1] * install in VT-1, watch logs in other VT * have in another VT a shell for the `ip` commands You probably want the syslog of d-i outside the VM for more convinend analysis (pardon my english) Regards Geert Stappers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_console
<preamble>
Not noticing humor, is no proof for the absence of humor.
</preamble>
Mmm, one of my motivators for working on libre software projects
is collaborating with smart people.
I'm willing to lower the bar to "people who can think for themselfs"
After all is the idea of "I could be stupid" just brilant.
"netmask" is a layer 3 thingy. My gutfeeling says the problem is
at layer 2, where "link" happens.
Message for those who encounter simular problem:
Please express your observations.
My observation:
An address like _._.8.1 is never in same network as _._.8.243/29
Regards
Geert Stappers