Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at

Bug 1822103

Summary: failed to install f32 on Gigabyte(aarch64 )
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: lnie <lnie>
Component: anacondaAssignee: Anaconda Maintenance Team <anaconda-maint-list>
Status: CLOSED EOL QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 32CC: anaconda-maint-list, jkonecny, jonathan, kellin, msalter, pwhalen, vanmeeuwen+fedora, vponcova, wwoods
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-05-25 15:54:37 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 245418    
Description Flags
console output none

Description lnie 2020-04-08 09:19:49 UTC
Created attachment 1677186 [details]
console output

Description of problem:

Try to install f32 to Gigabyte R120-T34 server,but failed
FYI, I'm able to install f31 to that server,and install f32 to Ampere(aarch64).
Please feel free to ask if you need any detailed informations.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

Fedora-32-20200407.n.0 Server aarch64 

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:

Actual results:

Expected results:

Additional info:

Comment 1 Jiri Konecny 2020-04-09 06:35:05 UTC
This seems like a problem with kernel/initrd to me. Could you please verify that you are booting with correct vmlinuz initrd and stage2 image from the same ISO build?

Comment 2 lnie 2020-04-09 07:42:12 UTC
Hi,Not very sure if I understand correctly,here is the console output from the *successful* Ampere installation with the same beaker repo,

Comment 3 Paul Whalen 2020-04-09 15:13:08 UTC
Did this work with Fedora-32-20200404.n.0(kernel-5.6.0-300.fc32)? I noticed a passing test result in the Fedora wiki.

Comment 4 Mark Salter 2020-04-09 16:57:35 UTC
I think you need iommu.passthrough=1 and arm-smmu.disable_bypass=n on those machines.

Comment 5 lnie 2020-04-10 05:22:35 UTC
(In reply to Paul Whalen from comment #3)
> Did this work with Fedora-32-20200404.n.0(kernel-5.6.0-300.fc32)? I noticed
> a passing test result in the Fedora wiki.

Nope,the passing test result is for Ampere(HR350A 7X35CTO1WW),didn't get a Gigabyte server to test Fedora-32-20200404.n.0(kernel-5.6.0-300.fc32).

Comment 6 lnie 2020-04-10 06:44:05 UTC
(In reply to Mark Salter from comment #4)
> I think you need iommu.passthrough=1 and arm-smmu.disable_bypass=n on those
> machines.

Thanks for your information,after adding that line, f32 can be installed successfully on the Gigabyte server,but the installed system stucks there after reboot: (
Assuming that 'iommu.passthrough=1 arm-smmu.disable_bypass=n' isn't in /etc/default/grub (though it has been added successfully to /etc/default/grub on f31 installation),
I put the following to kickstart %post,
sed -i -e 's/^GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX=\"/GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX=\"iommu.passthrough=1 arm-smmu.disable_bypass=n/'  /etc/default/grub
grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/efi/EFI/fedora/grub.cfg

But doesn't work,

FYI,F31 can be installed and rebooted successfully on Gigabyte (R120-T34)

I just found out that :
1. beaker adds "iommu.passthrough=1 arm-smmu.disable_bypass=n" automatically to f31 installation on Gigabyte and installations on Ampere(HR350A 7X35CTO1WW)
2.Cavium(ThunderX2 Sabre) works well without that line:

Comment 7 lnie 2020-04-13 14:56:14 UTC
Hi,sorry for the wrong put,I forgot add a ' 'to the sed command.but I still feel a little confused,rhel8 works well on Gigabyte server without“iommu.passthrough=1 arm-smmu.disable_bypass=n”

Comment 8 lnie 2020-04-14 07:25:02 UTC
Er,now I know the reason:adding "iommu.passthrough=1 arm-smmu.disable_bypass=n" is a workaround for an issue introduced in kernel 5.2,while RHEL8 has kernel4.18.
And the reason why Cavium(ThunderX2 Sabre) doesn't need that workaround is it takes SMMUv3 
Anyway,this is an issue of Arm,not NVme.Just to make sure,I've also checked an aarch64 server without NVMe,also affected by this issue.

Comment 9 Jiri Konecny 2020-04-14 11:10:17 UTC
Based on comment 8 and comment 7 can we close this bug or is there something else needs to be done from the Anaconda side?

Comment 10 Fedora Program Management 2021-04-29 16:17:33 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 32 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 32 on 2021-05-25.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
Fedora 'version' of '32'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 32 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 11 Ben Cotton 2021-05-25 15:54:37 UTC
Fedora 32 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2021-05-25. Fedora 32 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.