Syslinux - Mar 2017 - "isolinux.bin missing or corrupt" when booting USB flash drive in old PC

> Hi,
> 
> Ady wrote:
> >  http://repo.or.cz/syslinux.git/tree/HEAD:/diag 
> > "handoff.bin
> 
> This does not look like it would tell much of the properties in question.
> Nevertheless its print functions might be of interest for an isohybrid
> diagnostic MBR.
> 
> 
> > and at least 2 geodsp*.{bin,img(gz)}
> 
> I am now reading
>   http://repo.or.cz/syslinux.git/blob/HEAD:/diag/geodsp/README
> 
> These programs could probably tell the perceived disk geometry factors
> for cylinders and heads by the first line. I understand they also make
> test reads of their own bytes in order to verify that addressing is
> correct.
> 
> So yes, it would be interesting to see the output of geodspms.img
> or geodsp1s.img. The README is unclear about which one should be
> copied to the stick. Possibly one has to try both.
> 
> Next question is where a Debian user gets the images geodsp1s.img.xz
> and geodspms.img.xz. "apt-file search geodsp" finds nothing on
"jessie"
> or "testing". Debian "wheezy" had them as:
>   /usr/lib/syslinux/diag/geodsp1s.img.xz
>   /usr/lib/syslinux/diag/geodspms.img.xz
> I guess one would have to pull them out of the package available at
>   https://packages.debian.org/wheezy/all/syslinux-common/download
> 
> Is there an official SYSLINUX URL where to get the images ?
> 
> 
> > As I mentioned before, there is also "isolinux-debug.bin",
but it is
> > not supported by isohybrid, AFAIK.
> 
> The problem is not in the El Torito image, except the fact that its
> alleged first sector does not bear the magic number.
> Of course, "isolinux-debug.bin" is not supposed to bear the magic
number
> of an isohybrid capable El Torito image at all.
> 
> 
> Have a nice day :)
> 
> Thomas
> 
 
@Thomas,

In the last few years, ISOLINUX has received very low attention, both 
upstream and downstream. So I' am about to (attempt to) provide a 
generic suggestion for you (and for interested users / developers).

At the moment I am writing this, the latest revision of the "diag/*.*"
binaries / images are only available in Syslinux 6.04-pre1. Since the 
Syslinux distribution archives contain both sources and binaries, you 
(and Debian users) should be able to download it from kernel.org and 
find these binaries in the subdirectories under the "bios/diag/" 
directory of the Syslinux official archive.

What I would suggest would be to have a simple, very small minimal set 
of ISO images, which should complement - not to be confused with 
compliment - the aforementioned diagnostic images.

The diagnostic images should be written to a USB device using dd. There 
is no need for ISO images for that. Booting with such USB devices 
should provide part of the info.

On the other hand, having minimal ISOhybrid images, each one containing 
different versions of ISOLINUX, would allow a similar test for users: 
dd the ISOhybrid image to USB and see how it boots.

These "testing" isohybrid images don't even need kernels, initrd
nor
anything else (not even syslinux.cfg). They should only contain the 
bootloader files and the corresponding c32 files, perhaps with the 
additional binaries and scripts already included in the Syslinux 
distribution archives.

Having floppy-emulation ISO images could be part of the set.

These "testing" isohybrid images should not contain multiple catalog 
entries. They should either have one ISOLINUX version, or one EFI 
bootloader for one platform, and so on. KISS.

Each isohybrid image would correspond to a different version of 
Syslinux files.

The only objective of these images is to get to the boot prompt. In the 
case of the isohybrid images, the user could execute some of the c32 
modules from the boot prompt, in order to obtain additional information 
(e.g. disk.c32, meminfo.c32, and so on).

So, for example, if David (who started this long discussion) would want 
to know whether an older version of ISOLINUX would be able to at least 
boot his older systems, he just needs the small minimal images. The 
point is that he would not need to learn how to build isohybrid images 
just for these purpose.

Now, besides this whole discussion and with no reference to anyone in 
particular nor offense intended, I have to admit that I am a little bit 
tired of answering questions related to how an ISO image either fails 
or succeeds when booting from USB (we both have been part of these 
discussions during the last few years) . I am very much aware that 
maintainers of Linux distributions want to keep distributing _only_ ISO 
images and they want to support _only_ the "simple" dd method, in
spite
of the fact that for the most part optical media is not being used for 
these purposes anymore. At the same time that distro maintainers want 
to "simplify" their workload, The Syslinux Project keeps ignoring the 
matter. Although these words could be interpreted in a negative manner 
(not my intention), the point is about actual positive effects: let's 
try to provide some kind of simple path to move forward, considering 
that distro maintainers and Syslinux' developers won't.

Having simple minimal boot images won't solve all the problems 
(especially those related to building environment), but perhaps they 
can help users and support (at least a little bit?). After all, they 
only have to dd images and test the boot. If nothing else, they would 
serve for comparison, narrowing down the source of problems.

At any rate, I am still of the opinion that using "the flexible way" 
and/or auxiliary tools should be _much_ more effective and less 
time-consuming for troubleshooting.

Regards,
Ady.

Hi,

Ady wrote:
> In the last few years, ISOLINUX has received very low attention, both 
> upstream and downstream.
Nevertheless the well established Linux distros use it for their ISOs.
Most have adopted mjg's isohybrid --uefi layout. Only SuSE does it
different.

So for me with my xorriso hat on, ISOLINUX is as an important partner
as is GRUB.

> So I' am about to (attempt to) provide a 
> generic suggestion for you (and for interested users / developers).
> [...]
> What I would suggest would be to have a simple, very small minimal set 
> of ISO images,
I have to confess that i never set up an ISOLINUX system myself.
My tests are done by repacking existing ISOs. I take their MBRs, files
and directories and then add the various boot records and pointers.

So i can mostly offer my advise with packing up the ISOs, not with
preparing their files.

> Having floppy-emulation ISO images could be part of the set.
That would mean a SYSLINUX installation in the floppy image.
If a "2.88 meg diskette" is too small, the next size would be an
emulated
hard disk. (We would not have to find out how many blocks a diskette
image really has to have.)

> Having simple minimal boot images [...] perhaps [...] can help users
> and support
I am not opposed to such a collection. But somebody needs to set up
the ISOLINUXes or SYSLINUXes before we can pack them up as ISOs.

> "the flexible way" 
> and/or auxiliary tools should be _much_ more effective and less 
> time-consuming for troubleshooting.
It is always worth a try if the isohybrid way fails.

I wonder, though, whether creating a bootable hard disk from an ISO
is really system agnostic. I.e. does it work with all distro ISOs ?
There must be some reason why the distro maintainers took the plight to
adopt isohybrid and mjg layout.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

> Hi,
> 
> Ady wrote:
> > In the last few years, ISOLINUX has received very low attention, both 
> > upstream and downstream.
> 
> Nevertheless the well established Linux distros use it for their ISOs.
> Most have adopted mjg's isohybrid --uefi layout. Only SuSE does it
> different.
> 
> So for me with my xorriso hat on, ISOLINUX is as an important partner
> as is GRUB.
> 
 
 
@Thomas,

I was referring to the needed attention from developers, package 
maintainers and distro maintainers. Yes, mjg's technique is _used_, but 
the whole isohybrid subject is not "maintained" when needed, and the 
same goes to ISOLINUX. I am not referring to usage, but about code 
development / maintenance. We both have participated in long 
discussions, while developers of The Syslinux Project and package 
maintainers ignore the subject.

> 
> > So I' am about to (attempt to) provide a 
> > generic suggestion for you (and for interested users / developers).
> > [...]
> > What I would suggest would be to have a simple, very small minimal set
> > of ISO images,
> 
> I have to confess that i never set up an ISOLINUX system myself.
> My tests are done by repacking existing ISOs. I take their MBRs, files
> and directories and then add the various boot records and pointers.
> 
> So i can mostly offer my advise with packing up the ISOs, not with
> preparing their files.
> 
 
 
I am aware of that. My suggestion was/ is about taking the opposite 
point of view. Kernels and other files are not really required in the 
images when the problem arises in the bootloader itself or even before 
that step.
 
> 
> > Having floppy-emulation ISO images could be part of the set.
> 
> That would mean a SYSLINUX installation in the floppy image.
> If a "2.88 meg diskette" is too small, the next size would be an
emulated
> hard disk. (We would not have to find out how many blocks a diskette
> image really has to have.)
> 
 
 
A floppy-emulation is enough (regarding size) when the objective is to 
test BIOS' compatibility. Once again, the ISO image doesn't need to 
include kernels and what not, just (some of) the Syslinux-related 
files, for convenience.

> 
> > Having simple minimal boot images [...] perhaps [...] can help users
> > and support
> 
> I am not opposed to such a collection. But somebody needs to set up
> the ISOLINUXes or SYSLINUXes before we can pack them up as ISOs.
> 
 
 
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The official archives located 
in kernel.org already contain the binaries. The only (yet, very 
important) inconvenience is that compilation issues cannot be resolved 
by only using official upstream binaries.

> 
> > "the flexible way" 
> > and/or auxiliary tools should be _much_ more effective and less 
> > time-consuming for troubleshooting.
> 
> It is always worth a try if the isohybrid way fails.
> 
 
 
I mildly "disagree". When official isohybrid images fail to get to the
bootloader step, then "the flexible way" is the most effective 
troubleshooting method, by far. Moreover, under certain conditions it 
would take less than 10 minutes for a common (newbie) user to use this 
method.

Considering that auxiliary tools (that mostly automate the whole 
procedure) are available, the most difficult obstacle is the 
"maintenance" and "support" I mentioned above. From distro
maintainers
(among others), users commonly get "you are on your own" (or no 
replies).
 
> I wonder, though, whether creating a bootable hard disk from an ISO
> is really system agnostic. I.e. does it work with all distro ISOs ?
> There must be some reason why the distro maintainers took the plight to
> adopt isohybrid and mjg layout.
> 
 
 
Simply: less workload (and, in some cases, lazziness). They distribute 
a/one "one-fit-all" image. Except that it is not really "fit
all".

As an example, dd'ing the diag/*.* images to a USB device doesn't even 
require an ISO image. Another: there is a reason for memtest86+ to use 
a floppy-emulation ISO image and additional options for other cases. 
And memtest86+ is not the only one that chooses to provide different 
type of images according to the usage.

Anyway, my "gut feeling" ATM is that we won't get anything
actually
done in the current conditions.

Perhaps David is capable of finding what actually works for his old 
Pentium 4 computers (and maybe even post his results?). I hope so.

(I am still guessing / betting that using an older version of ISOLINUX 
(e.g. v.4.xx, isolinux.bin<32KiB) with adequate CHS values in the 
isohybrid command and writing the image to a USB device of 1GB would 
have had better chances than the official Debian image in a 4GB USB 
device. And, as I said, "the flexible way" would have even better 
compatibility).


 
> Have a nice day :)
> 
> Thomas
> 
 
Regards,
Ady.

On 03/19/2017 09:05 AM, Ady Ady via Syslinux wrote:
> Now, besides this whole discussion and with no reference to anyone in
> particular nor offense intended, I have to admit that I am a little bit
> tired of answering questions related to how an ISO image either fails
> or succeeds when booting from USB (we both have been part of these
> discussions during the last few years) . I am very much aware that
> maintainers of Linux distributions want to keep distributing _only_ ISO
> images and they want to support _only_ the "simple" dd method, in
spite
> of the fact that for the most part optical media is not being used for
> these purposes anymore. At the same time that distro maintainers want
> to "simplify" their workload, The Syslinux Project keeps ignoring
the
> matter. Although these words could be interpreted in a negative manner
> (not my intention), the point is about actual positive effects: let's
> try to provide some kind of simple path to move forward, considering
> that distro maintainers and Syslinux' developers won't.
I used debian-8.7.1-i386-xfce-CD-1.iso because that is what Debian makes 
available.


I have experienced problems with Debian's "isohybrid" images, USB
flash
drives, and older computers for many years.  So long as the computer had 
an optical drive, I had a work-around.  Now I have a computer without an 
optical drive, and I decided to try to get to the bottom of the problem.


I have had better luck using "memstick.bin", etc., images produced by 
other projects (Memtest86+, FreeBSD).


If someone knows of a Debian 8.7.1 i386 Xfce installer "memstick.bin" 
image, please provide a URL.


If someone knows of a document that explains how to build a 
"memstick.bin" image with the Debian 8.7.1 i386 Xfce installer on it, 
please provide a URL.


David

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 05:18:21PM -0700, David Christensen via Syslinux
wrote:
> On 03/19/2017 09:05 AM, Ady Ady via Syslinux wrote:
> > Now, besides this whole discussion and with no reference to anyone in
> > particular nor offense intended, I have to admit that I am a little
bit
> > tired of answering questions related to how an ISO image either fails
> > or succeeds when booting from USB (we both have been part of these
> > discussions during the last few years) . I am very much aware that
> > maintainers of Linux distributions want to keep distributing _only_
ISO
> > images and they want to support _only_ the "simple" dd
method, in spite
> > of the fact that for the most part optical media is not being used for
> > these purposes anymore. At the same time that distro maintainers want
> > to "simplify" their workload, The Syslinux Project keeps
ignoring the
> > matter. Although these words could be interpreted in a negative manner
> > (not my intention), the point is about actual positive effects:
let's
> > try to provide some kind of simple path to move forward, considering
> > that distro maintainers and Syslinux' developers won't.
As I see it, it is the story of four wellknown people
Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.

   There was an important job to be done and Everybody
   was sure that Somebody would do it.

   Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

   Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.

   Everybody thought that Anybody could do it,
   but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.

   It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody
   when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.


Being Nobody boils down into helping Somebody. It is no by-passing of
Anybody, nor telling that Everbody has the wrong expections.

It is Somebody accepting the help from Nobody.

> I used debian-8.7.1-i386-xfce-CD-1.iso because that is what Debian
> makes available.
> 
> 
> I have experienced problems with Debian's "isohybrid" images,
USB
> flash drives, and older computers for many years.  So long as the
> computer had an optical drive, I had a work-around.  Now I have a
> computer without an optical drive, and I decided to try to get to
> the bottom of the problem.
> 
> 
> I have had better luck using "memstick.bin", etc., images
produced
> by other projects (Memtest86+, FreeBSD).
> 
> 
> If someone knows of a Debian 8.7.1 i386 Xfce installer
> "memstick.bin" image, please provide a URL.
I do vaguely remember seeing memtest86+ in an advanced level
of a Debian boot menu. It could be on an allready installed system,
it could be on a to be installed system. I haven't checked.
Thing I'm telling: I think it is allready available.

> If someone knows of a document that explains how to build a
> "memstick.bin" image with the Debian 8.7.1 i386 Xfce installer on
> it, please provide a URL.
First build an unmodified version of the XFCE installer.
Then add the memtest option.

How to build d-i is documented at https://wiki.debian.org/DebianInstaller/Build



Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
It is meaningless what you do,
but is important that you do it.
                 --Mahatma Ghandi