Frank Nitty Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Installing Security Update 2014-002 (04-22-2014) reverts back to the original vanilla mach_kernel. Copy over the vanilla mach_kernel on the root of the system with the patched version here. You'll also have to update NVIDIA Web Retail Drivers 331.01.01f04 here for graphics to still work. Also download CUDA 6.0.37 here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RehabMan Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Installing Security Update 2014-002 (04-22-2014) reverts back to the original vanilla mach_kernel. Copy over the vanilla mach_kernel on the root of the system with the patched version here. You'll also have to update NVIDIA Web Retail Drivers 331.01.01f04 here for graphics to still work. Actually mach_kernel is updated. Best to repatch the version that is installed, instead of overwriting it with an older one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v.kouk Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 After this update i can't boot in normal mode, only safe Pc specs: intel core i5 4570 3.2 gpu:amd radeon hd 7770 motherboard:gigabyte h81m-d2v Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Nitty Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 Actually mach_kernel is updated. Best to repatch the version that is installed, instead of overwriting it with an older one... The link I provided is to a patched version of the mach_kernel for 10.9.2 which is mostly based on your code. Once I copied it over the updated version, I was able to boot into Mavs w/o any reboot loops. After this update i can't boot in normal mode, only safe Pc specs: intel core i5 4570 3.2 gpu:amd radeon hd 7770 motherboard:gigabyte h81m-d2v Did you use the patched mach_kernel to boot into OS X after installing Security Update 2014-002? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v.kouk Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 The one you posted in download section? Yesbut without luck.Seems i got gpu problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Nitty Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 The one you posted in download section? Yesbut without luck.Seems i got gpu problem Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I don't know of any AMD Mac drivers that work w/ 10.9.2 since I only use a NVIDIA GPU. If you had a NVIDIA card, the current Web drivers would work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RehabMan Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 The link I provided is to a patched version of the mach_kernel for 10,9.2 which is mostly based on your code. Once I copied it over the updated version, I was able to boot into Mavs w/o any reboot loops. It is often easier to just let people patch their own mach_kernel as it eliminates the possibility of having a mismatched mach_kernel. That's my theory anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Nitty Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 It is often easier to just let people patch their own mach_kernel as it eliminates the possibility of having a mismatched mach_kernel. That's my theory anyway... True that's understandable... I notated the scripts used when I patched the mach_kenel I made available for download so if anyone wanted to do so on their own they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RehabMan Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 True that's understandable... I notated the scripts used when I patched the mach_kenel I made available for download so if anyone wanted to do so on their own they could. It would be appropriate to link the source of the 'notated' scripts: http://racerrehabman.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/maverickshaswell-kernel-patch-for-early-reboot/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Nitty Posted April 27, 2014 Author Share Posted April 27, 2014 It would be appropriate to link the source of the 'notated' scripts: http://racerrehabman.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/maverickshaswell-kernel-patch-for-early-reboot/ I cited your blog as the source with a link to it on the mach_kernel's download page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RehabMan Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 I cited your blog as the source with a link to it on the mach_kernel's download page. Attribution was not there when I looked earlier today. I appreciate your adding it. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Nitty Posted April 28, 2014 Author Share Posted April 28, 2014 Attribution was not there when I looked earlier today. I appreciate your adding it. Thanks! No problem man. It wasn't there before so I added it at your request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pike R. Alpha Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 The title is a bit misleading. You only need to patch the mach_kernel if MSR 0x2E is locked in your (UEFI) BIOS – hence the early reboot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Nitty Posted April 29, 2014 Author Share Posted April 29, 2014 The title is a bit misleading. You only need to patch the mach_kernel if MSR 0x2E is locked in your (UEFI) BIOS – hence the early reboot. Not really. That's subjective to your opinion. Have you, if you had a Haswell CPU, then it would actually be informational than the former. If you don't have a Haswell CPU, this post doesn't pertain to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pike R. Alpha Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Not really. That's subjective to your opinion. Have you, if you had a Haswell CPU, then it would actually be informational than the former. If you don't have a Haswell CPU, this post doesn't pertain to you. I do happen to own a couple of Haswell processors, even two that have yet to be released, including a X97 motherboard, but none require a patched kernel – hence my statement that the title is misleading. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Nitty Posted May 3, 2014 Author Share Posted May 3, 2014 I do happen to own a couple of Haswell processors, even two that have yet to be released, including a X97 motherboard, but none require a patched kernel – hence my statement that the title is misleading. Ummm, never heard of an "X97". Maybe you meant to say Z97. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Z97 is associated with the Haswell Refresh architecture which technically isn't the same. The only thing similar between Z87 "Haswell" and Z97 "Haswell Refresh" is that Z97 can run all the same processors of the Z87 architecture and more. I'm sorry you mistook my post as a warning that didn't pertain to you. I'll add a "Z87" disclaimer to not confuse you next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pike R. Alpha Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Ummm, never heard of an "X97". Maybe you meant to say Z97. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Z97 is associated with the Haswell Refresh architecture which technically isn't the same. The only thing similar between Z87 "Haswell" and Z97 "Haswell Refresh" is that Z97 can run all the same processors of the Z87 architecture and more. I'm sorry you mistook my post as a warning that didn't pertain to you. I'll add a "Z87" disclaimer to not confuse you next time. Come on. The "X" in "X97" simple means 'any alphanumerical character' Just like N mean 0-9. I also happen to own quite a large number of X87 boards. Eleven to be precise, and none of them require me to anything with the kernel. Not to mention that the kernel patch you talk about stems from something that I wrote on my blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Nitty Posted May 4, 2014 Author Share Posted May 4, 2014 Come on. The "X" in "X97" simple means 'any alphanumerical character' Just like N mean 0-9. I also happen to own quite a large number of X87 boards. Eleven to be precise, and none of them require me to anything with the kernel. Not to mention that the kernel patch you talk about stems from something that I wrote on my blog. I'm sure that the "X" you meant by could still be misinterpreted by someone other than myself, especially since the last 4 years Intel has released quite a few platforms categorized by "X" and "Z" but enough of that since I'm just beating a dead horse so I digress. I'm sure it's an accomplishment for you to acquire that many boards of the same platform (X87). I'm sure they keep you plenty busy while you're do your testing on each system. I believe I already accredited the individual upon whom the patch was borrowed from, which is also mentioned in the above posts. Unless I'm missing something, you can take that up with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RehabMan Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 ... I'm sure they keep you plenty busy while you're do your testing on each system. I believe I already accredited the individual upon whom the patch was borrowed from, which is also mentioned in the above posts. Unless I'm missing something, you can take that up with him. You linked to my blog. I fully document Pike's contribution in my process of creating that patch in the blog post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pike R. Alpha Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 You linked to my blog. I fully document Pike's contribution in my process of creating that patch in the blog post. No worries. I know. And the issue I have with this thread is not that, but the fact that people may misinterpret it. Like every Haswell and/or Z87 motherboard requires a kernel path, because that is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Nitty Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 You linked to my blog. I fully document Pike's contribution in my process of creating that patch in the blog post. Yes that is correct. I never knew who Pike was until now. Thanks for the clarification of his contribution so that I am fully aware. No worries. I know. And the issue I have with this thread is not that, but the fact that people may misinterpret it. Like every Haswell and/or Z87 motherboard requires a kernel path, because that is not the case. Well even though not every Haswell motherboard will need the patch, I would've assumed that those who didn't would've never sought after a solution and users who were affected probably would've searched Google which would've brought them here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts