2466 replies to this topic

[fantomas1]

Hi Gilles, and others too !  

like theconnactic said it, kernel and extensions aren't the same thing.  What we have here, it's a 32-bit kernel, i.e. with "only" 32-bit instructions to launch 32-bit bootEFI for Intel solo-core procs (like a mini mac from 2006).

But, these procs have 64-bits instructions to launch 64-mode so it's why we can see the 64-bits kexts launched with a 32-bits kernel. It's normal, because it's a 64-bits system so the 64-mode launches by default if there's a proc with 64-bits instructions.

But in reality, only 32-bits part of these kexts are launched, even if you see 64-bits kexts !  

You can verify  this patched kernel with Terminal, tape lipo -info copy/pasteyourpatchedkernel   and you'll see there's only 32-bits instructions!!!!  

[gils83]

fantomas1, on 02 December 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Hi Gilles, and others too !  

like theconnactic said it, kernel and extensions aren't the same thing.  What we have here, it's a 32-bit kernel, i.e. with "only" 32-bit instructions to launch 32-bit bootEFI for Intel solo-core procs (like a mini mac from 2006).

But, these procs have 64-bits instructions to launch 64-mode so it's why we can see the 64-bits kexts launched with a 32-bits kernel. It's normal, because it's a 64-bits system so the 64-mode launches by default if there's a proc with 64-bits instructions.

But in reality, only 32-bits part of these kexts are launched, even if you see 64-bits kexts !  

You can verify  this patched kernel with Terminal, tape lipo -info copy/pasteyourpatchedkernel   and you'll see there's only 32-bits instructions!!!!  

Merci .

[spakk]

I'm still in the installation of Snow Leopard. the installation proceeds very annoying, had many setbacks, I'm almost done and still needs to  update 10.6.8. Then I can start the tests. As soon as I have a results I will inform you .

[theconnactic]

Hello, folks!

I'm glad to present the new beta revision of my 12.0 kernel for AMD machines. It owes much to the hard work of sinetek a.k.a. slackware: i took his ssse3 emulator from his Snow Leopard kernel and add it to the commpage of my own. I can't stop stressing how important was his achievement, and he deserves all credit for what he's done.

That's my first try. Besides adding the emulator's header and C source, i altered the commpage.c file to actually enable the emulator. What i did is quite simple: i just replaced the sse3emu calls in the commpage.c for ssse3emu calls. So, if your CPU is old enough to not to have sse3 support, it won't even begin to work. Sorry for it, but remember - it's just another beta and it's not meant to work at all, but to give us answers, so hopefully we get ways to better patches and proper emulator implementation.

Add the kernel to the root and boot with the flag sinactic. Report your results, with pics and vids if possible. Later i'll add the diffs for this new beta, so you guys can make experiments f your own. Good luck!

 sinactic.zip   3.33MB   26 downloads

Here's the diff:


 sinactic.diff.zip   1.2MB   6 downloads

[instant idiot]

I'll test that soon with a brand new installation as soon as possible. Glad to hear an SSSE3 emulator now exists!

[akimoa]

well i had a backup of my MBP so i gave it a shot by swapping Kernels here the result

tried a couple of flags but no sucess  .... as  asumed

[gils83]

theconnactic, on 04 December 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

Hello, folks!

I'm glad to present the new beta revision of my 12.0 kernel for AMD machines. It owes much to the hard work of sinetek a.k.a. slackware: i took his ssse3 emulator from his Snow Leopard kernel and add it to the commpage of my own. I can't stop stressing how important was his achievement, and he deserves all credit for what he's done.

That's my first try. Besides adding the emulator's header and C source, i altered the commpage.c file to actually enable the emulator. What i did is quite simple: i just replaced the sse3emu calls in the commpage.c for ssse3emu calls. So, if your CPU is old enough to not to have sse3 support, it won't even begin to work. Sorry for it, but remember - it's just another beta and it's not meant to work at all, but to give us answers, so hopefully we get ways to better patches and proper emulator implementation.

Add the kernel to the root and boot with the flag sinactic. Report your results, with pics and vids if possible. Later i'll add the diffs for this new beta, so you guys can make experiments f your own. Good luck!

sinactic.zip

Here's the diff:


sinactic.diff.zip

hello , Connactic ,



I tested it all tonight

thank you

[mac_carol]

theconnactic, on 04 December 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

Hello, folks!

I'm glad to present the new beta revision of my 12.0 kernel for AMD machines. It owes much to the hard work of sinetek a.k.a. slackware: i took his ssse3 emulator from his Snow Leopard kernel and add it to the commpage of my own. I can't stop stressing how important was his achievement, and he deserves all credit for what he's done.

That's my first try. Besides adding the emulator's header and C source, i altered the commpage.c file to actually enable the emulator. What i did is quite simple: i just replaced the sse3emu calls in the commpage.c for ssse3emu calls. So, if your CPU is old enough to not to have sse3 support, it won't even begin to work. Sorry for it, but remember - it's just another beta and it's not meant to work at all, but to give us answers, so hopefully we get ways to better patches and proper emulator implementation.

Add the kernel to the root and boot with the flag sinactic. Report your results, with pics and vids if possible. Later i'll add the diffs for this new beta, so you guys can make experiments f your own. Good luck!

sinactic.zip

Here's the diff:


sinactic.diff.zip

Tested on with ML 10.8.0 on AMD P-II x4 965



1. flags:  sinactic arch=i386 busratio=17 -f -v

result:  instant reboot



2. flags:  sinactic busratio=17 -f -v

result:  KP

[zchef2k]

akimoa, on 04 December 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

well i had a backup of my MBP so i gave it a shot by swapping Kernels here the result

tried a couple of flags but no sucess  .... as  asumed

mac_carol, on 04 December 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

Tested on with ML 10.8.0 on AMD P-II x4 965



1. flags:  sinactic arch=i386 busratio=17 -f -v

result:  instant reboot



2. flags:  sinactic busratio=17 -f -v

result:  KP

Does anyone actually read the forum?

fips_mode=0

AMD's SSE3 interferes with the checking and loading of corecrypto. I know this because I have masked the instruction in ESXi and it loads without error.

-Z

[akimoa]

will do another test later on tx for pointing it out

[IiTz ShAnE]

Just restoring install to USB. Will post back later on what happens

[mac_carol]

zchef2k, on 04 December 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Does anyone actually read the forum?

fips_mode=0

AMD's SSE3 interferes with the checking and loading of corecrypto. I know this because I have masked the instruction in ESXi and it loads without error.

-Z

flags:  sinactic fips_mode=0 busratio=17 -f -v

result:  freeze

[spakk]

mac_carol, on 04 December 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

Tested on with ML 10.8.0 on AMD P-II x4 965



1. flags:  sinactic arch=i386 busratio=17 -f -v

result:  instant reboot

2. flags:  sinactic busratio=17 -f -v

result:  KP

Please test this boot flag:
sinactic arch=x86 usekernelcache=no maxmem=4096  busratio=17 -v -f

[mac_carol]

spakk, on 04 December 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

Please test this boot flag:
sinactic arch=x86 usekernelcache=no maxmem=4096  busratio=17 -v -f

arch=x86  ???

if what you mean was  arch=i386

the kernel won't run in 32-bits mode
it'll give me instant reboot


but with flags:  sinactic arch=x86_64 usekernelcache=no maxmem=4096  busratio=17 -v -f

it gave me the same KP

[spakk]

Sorry but I can not see any changes from the first and the second conatic-kernel with the current modified conatic / sinetek kernel. It is the same panic message.


Edit 1:
akimoa what do you think?

Edit 2:
What about boot flag:  -force64 and -legacy? have you tested it?

[IiTz ShAnE]

I'm just getting an instant reboot. Tried all kinds of boot flags but nothing...

[wastez]

spakk, on 04 December 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

Sorry but I can not see any changes from the first and the second conatic-kernel with the current modified conatic / sinetek kernel. It is the same panic message.


Edit 1:
akimoa what do you think?

Edit 2:
What about boot flag:  -force64 and -legacy? have you tested it?

-legacy will not work because it is just a 64 bit kernel.
-force64 makes also no sense, i think i don´t have to tell you why

[mac_carol]

spakk, on 04 December 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

Edit 2:
What about boot flag:  -force64 and -legacy? have you tested it?

as I told you before,  
the kernel won't let me running the osx in 32-bits  (arch=i386 -legacy / arch=i386 -force64)
It'll give me instant reboot

[spakk]

mac_carol, on 04 December 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

as I told you before,  
the kernel won't let me running the osx in 32-bits  (arch=i386 -legacy / arch=i386 -force64)
It'll give me instant reboot

wastez, on 04 December 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

-legacy will not work because it is just a 64 bit kernel.
-force64 makes also no sense, i think i don´t have to tell you why

how was that? with can't see the wood for the trees.... I apologize and thanks for the information

[Sinetek]

howdy,

thanks connactic for doing this. huge timesaver. i've begun dorking around with a 10.8 kernel actually, so an x64 SSSE3 emu is in the works. The pictures you guys posted are very helpful and they clearly show corecrypto crashing because of a missing instruction, presumably SSSE3.

I'm in deep {censored} with calculus finals, so don't expect much this week  however XD
TODO: add my own credits to the files i've written, lol

-- Sinetek

*dons the thinking hat*

connactic, there's a few technical details i'd want to precise out,
the commpage has to be filled in, maybe it's best to do so unconditionally? the actual call to the commpage occurs in idt.s/idt64.s, so if you don't load the commpage but still leave the idt modified, then you'll get a hard reboot on any invalid instruction.
If run on a cpu with SSSE3, then the routines will never be called and no performance hit incurs.

another thing, there is super magic voodoo that must be done at compile time in order for the commpage binary to work.. this is because of apple's linker.. do a search for "ssse3emu.o" in the makefiles to see how it's done, or if you don't get it, ask me then

*doffs the thinking hat*