[Dnsmasq-discuss] [PATCH] Re: pxe-service entries in dnsmasq conf seem to fail non-proxy EFI boot
pemensik at redhat.com
Tue Oct 12 01:41:51 UTC 2021
Okay, sorry for omitting others.
On 10/9/21 11:49, Shrenik Bhura wrote:
> Adding Alkis and Jigish back to the thread via cc.
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2021 at 15:18, Shrenik Bhura <shrenik.bhura at gmail.com>
> Hey Petr,
> I have read your post a few times but am only partially able to
> understand everything. It may be my lack of knowledge of the inner
> workings of all things involved. I shall give it a go again later
> and even try the patch. But where do you want me to apply the
> patch - on the master branch or on your pxe-services branch (
> ) ?
That patch is against master from Simon's official repository. I have
rebased that branch on github, the change is already there. You can just
try that branch code as it is. That patch were more for Simon, because
he does not merge remote branches directly.
> Meanwhile, from a novice point of view and from what I know works
> in dnsmasq, I have this query -
> Could dnsmasq not be made to ignore the pxe-service lines or
> bypass the corresponding logic from the ltsp-dnsmasq.conf when
> 1. is_tag_set("proxy") == "False" i.e ignore these lines -
My change attempts to do exactly that. Current released code enables
special handling when pxe-service is present in configuration. Without
any relation about required tags for it. I have tried to modify it to
require matching pxe-service to be found for current request. In a case
any service does not match, it should fallback to classic DHCP. Could
you try how much I were successful? This should work on my pxe-services
> 2. and when is_tag_set("rpi") == "False" i.e. ignore this line or
> bypass corresponding logic -
> pxe-service=tag:rpi,X86PC,"Raspberry Pi Boot ",unused
> when dnsmasq is processing a request in /non-proxy mode/ and the
> request is from /X86-64_EFI clients/?
Again, should work with my change. You should use a number to set a
type, with 0 being order to boot from local disk instead.
pxe-service=tag:rpi,X86PC,"Raspberry Pi Boot ",0
Note other pxe-services should not match rpi tag, so only above is
offered to RPi.
> If possible, then everything would just work as expected for all
> scenarios - *(BIOS or UEFI or RPI) and proxy*, *(BIOS or UEFI or
> RPI) and non-proxy*.
> It may be possible to handle this just within dnsmasq.
In ipxe.efi you have sent there seems to be missing support for menus
defined by pxe-service (and option 43). That is a reason why pxe-service
and pxe-prompt is there. If you don't need those menus, I would suggest
using tags for dhcp-match=set:efi,option:client-arch,7 instead and using
just pure dhcp-boot or dhcp-option=option:bootfile-name. Those should
work more reliably and contrary to pxe-service should work also on IPv6.
I were not successful booting with ipxe.efi built you sent and
pxe-service=*,X86-64_EFI,*. It just did not work on my Lenovo laptop or
brother's Dell. I don't have more machines to test EFI. pcbios mode
worked fine with menus, their support is enabled in ipxe bios builds by
> Please do consider this if not already done so.
I have had trouble with proxy mode and I am not sure what is its
purpose. Do you know when proxy mode should be used? When is it
required? It seems to be related to pxe-service, which I think does not
work reliably on EFI. Should it be possible to offer PXEClient
next-server and it would ask that server via pxe 4011 port? Do you need
it somewhere in a real world?
Would this config work instead, without any pxe-service enabled?
# Specify the boot filename for each tag, relative to tftp-root.
# If multiple lines with tags match, the last one is used.
# See: https://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php?title=PXELINUX#UEFI
It does not rely on option 43 PXE menus support, just plain old DHCP
boot file. Requires dnsmasq to be the (authoritative?) DHCP server on
Hope that helps.
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2021 at 03:43, Petr Menšík <pemensik at redhat.com> wrote:
> I have made some attempts at PXE booting. I have to say, it is
> a mess.
> Put my booting attempts at fedorapeople . I have asked on
> #ipxe IRC
> channel. It seems pxe-service works only on biospc,
> client-arch == 0. I
> were able to make simple menu on my father's lenovo desktop
> and my work
> Thinkpad 490s. One instance of Raspberry 3. In Legacy mode, it
> somehow well. You are even to make local boot menu entries. I
> made it
> possible to boot to memtest just fine.
> However, any my attempt in EFI mode to boot using menus
> failed. There is
> special function pxe_uefi_workaround, but to me it did not
> work. Current
> code did never return reply from pxe port request. Because my
> does not send option 43 stuff in ipxe.efi request and I have
> not used
> proxy, it just does not answer. I were able to make it return
> It seems not well supported and should be avoided.
> Guys at ipxe channel told me EFI does not include option 43 menu
> support, which seems to be true. At that results, I think
> should be in general avoided if you want to support EFI. Just
> use tags
> to offer first boot-file as ipxe.efi, then use ipxe script
> with possible
> menus inside. That seems to be more reliable and well
> documented way.
> I have fixed previous patch, it has to offer just based on
> boot item
> supplied type. Client arch is not always sent in a request,
> even when it
> is always present in discover, as I have noticed in Shrenik's
> dumps. I
> think that patch makes improvement and allows pxe-service work
> just for
> platforms related. Others should use dhcp-file with tags,
> depending on
> their clients.
> Custom setting of tags depending on option:client-arch seems
> to be more
> understandable and reliable.
> I have had enough of PXE today.
> 1. https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/dnsmasq/
> On 10/7/21 23:10, Simon Kelley wrote:
> > As an aside the the discussion, can I just point out that I
> don't have
> > any way to test any of this dnsmasq functionality at the
> moment, and I'm
> > very rusty on the PXE spec, especially as it relates to EFI.
> > I don't therefore have much to contribute to this
> discussion, but I do
> > think this is valuable work, and when you find a solution,
> I'll give the
> > resulting patchset my full attention.
> > Cheers,
> > Simon.
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
email: pemensik at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss