Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oracle Pushes VirtualBox 5.2 Into Public Beta

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by AnassAhmed View Post

    I use fedora 24/25/26 and it uses DKMS with virtualbox modules.
    Do you use the Oracle package? It doesn't register in DKMS

    Code:
    dkms status
    bbswitch, 0.8, 4.10.0-26-generic, x86_64: installed
    bbswitch, 0.8, 4.10.0-28-generic, x86_64: installed
    bbswitch, 0.8, 4.10.0-30-generic, x86_64: installed
    nvidia-375, 375.66, 4.10.0-26-generic, x86_64: installed
    nvidia-375, 375.66, 4.10.0-28-generic, x86_64: installed
    nvidia-375, 375.66, 4.10.0-30-generic, x86_64: installed

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by FuturePilot View Post

      Do you use the Oracle package? It doesn't register in DKMS

      Code:
      dkms status
      bbswitch, 0.8, 4.10.0-26-generic, x86_64: installed
      bbswitch, 0.8, 4.10.0-28-generic, x86_64: installed
      bbswitch, 0.8, 4.10.0-30-generic, x86_64: installed
      nvidia-375, 375.66, 4.10.0-26-generic, x86_64: installed
      nvidia-375, 375.66, 4.10.0-28-generic, x86_64: installed
      nvidia-375, 375.66, 4.10.0-30-generic, x86_64: installed
      I use the official Oracle repo. I'm on Mobile right now.. When I get back I'll check the package that adds DKMS configuration.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by FuturePilot View Post

        Third party dynamic kernel modules are a tricky area with secureboot. Ubuntu is working on something to automatically sign DKMS modules. However VirtualBox doesn't appear to use DKMS (why I still don't know!). The modules seem to get rebuilt in the background when you boot a new kernel. I wrote a couple scripts to automate the signing of these modules on my system. It's not pretty, but it gets the job done quickly.
        We used to support DKMS, but since we still had to support systems which did not provide it, and since we regularly had to deal with bug reports when something in DKMS went wrong, we decided that it was additional work for no good reason. If it turns out that DKMS is now a good way to get secure boot compatibility that might be a reason to bring it back.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by michael-vb View Post

          We used to support DKMS, but since we still had to support systems which did not provide it, and since we regularly had to deal with bug reports when something in DKMS went wrong, we decided that it was additional work for no good reason. If it turns out that DKMS is now a good way to get secure boot compatibility that might be a reason to bring it back.
          Ah, thanks for the info!

          Comment

          Working...
          X