macOS 10.14 Mojave: VBoxDrv.kext < 5.3 Blocked By AppleKextExcludeList.kext

[James Clarke]

After installing macOS 10.14 Mojave Beta 1 (18A293u), I can no longer use VirtualBox, as VBoxDrv.kext is blocked by AppleKextExcludeList.kext. Specifically, it is listed in its OSKextExcludeList blocking "LT 5.3". Presumably the kext needs modifications to work with the newer kernel.

[Socratis]

Related discussion in the forums: ​https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=88231

[IPv6Freely]

Apple has closed bug report #41021597 with the following:

This is an issue for a third party to resolve based on the following:

The kext is blocked because it will panic the machine if allowed to load. Oracle is aware of what changes need to be made, it was communicated to them already. This is Oracle's issue to resolve, please contact them with any additional feedback.

We are closing this report.

If you have questions about the resolution, or if this is still a critical issue for you, then please update your bug report with that information.

Please be sure to regularly check new Apple releases for any updates that might affect this issue.

Link: ​https://bugreport.apple.com/web/?problemID=41021597

[janitor]

macOS 10.14 Mojave is not yet supported.

[IPv6Freely]

Mojave not yet being supported is kind of the point of filing the ticket.

[Socratis]

Exactly what 'IPv6Freely' said. You can always tag it as "Suggestion/Enhancement".

Re-opening this. Otherwise please be fair and close all tickets that deal with forward looking kernels, be it Linux or NT.

Believe me, OSX 10.14 users are going to be a lot happier compared to the developers when this ticket is actually closed. Preferably as [Fixed]... ;)

[janitor]

*shrug* Frankly I see zero real value in this ticket. We know Mojave will be out there and we are going to support it eventually, you don't have to tell us. Also there's nothing interesting you can tell us at this point about your situation w.r.t. Mojave. A typical bug about Linux kernel N+1 tells us about specific ways current VBox code fails on that kernel - usually a heads up on an API change. This bug literally just tells us that Mojave is not yet supported, which we know.

So is there any value in keeping this open besides psychotherapeutic? Not a rhetoric question. What kind of meaningful technical dialog do you expect to happen here?

[ShakiSHA]

Replying to janitor:

*shrug* Frankly I see zero real value in this ticket.

Don't be so sad! In past updates, there wasn't needed any modification to adapt the essential compatibility of virtualbox with mojave.

This issue was made to help the community to identify that there is a problem and also where it is that.

So, is not zero real value. Be happy instead!

[IPv6Freely]

A patched version was released for testing. See this forum post for the download URL: ​https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?p=424152#p424152

To test this version, follow the instructions on this forum post: ​https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?p=424239#p424239

This assumes you have SIP disabled on your system so that an unsigned kext will load.

[IPv6Freely]

Updated procedure with kext dependencies fixed here: ​https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?p=424309#p424309

[IPv6Freely]

The new version 5.2.14 includes the fix for the kext. We're still waiting on Apple to update OSKextExcludeList from LT 5.3 to LT 5.2.14

[James Clarke]

Indeed, I've been running with a kext built from trunk for the past week and it seems to be working just fine. On a related note, I submitted https://www.virtualbox.org/pipermail/vbox-dev/2018-June/015040.html to the mailing list so that the kext would actually compile on Mojave; perhaps someone could review it, please?

[Socratis]

Replying to jrtc27:

On a related note, I submitted https://www.virtualbox.org/pipermail/vbox-dev/2018-June/015040.html to the mailing list so that the kext would actually compile on Mojave; perhaps someone could review it, please?

I asked you a question on the mailing list, did you not get it? How are you actually going to build it if Macports for 10.14 isn't out yet?

I wouldn't want to continue the conversation on this thread as to avoid the noise, so either contact me via e-mail, or on the related thread on the forums: ​Build VirtualBox ≥ 5.1.2 on OSX ≥ 10.9.

[IPv6Freely]

silvae86 made a great write-up with full instructions on getting Virtualbox to run on MacOS Mojave while we wait for Apple to update their AppleKextExcludeList.kext:

​https://silvae86.github.io/sysadmin/mojave/beta/vagrant/virtualbox/osx/macos/2018/07/10/running-vagrant-and-virtualbox-in-mojave-public-beta

[Socratis]

Please note a couple of remarks regarding the write-up: ​https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=88231&p=425073#p425073

[IPv6Freely]

Just as a final note now that this ticket is closed:

Apple macOS Mojave Beta 4 now has VBoxDrv.kext set in the AppleKextExcludeList.kext as 'LT 5.2.14' which means VirtualBox will now install and run in Mojave without modification.

[omissis]

Not sure if I am missing something, but even after updating to Mojave Beta 4 Virtualbox still does not work. I tried versions 5.2.12, 5.2.14 and 5.2.16: all of them threw a warning at the last step of the installer and then failed to start virtual machines afterwards.

[IPv6Freely]

Replying to omissis:

EDIT: I found what was wrong. MacOS did prevent Oracle, Inc. from loading extensions as a security measure. Going to Security and Privacy and explicitly giving permission made the installer work and Virtualbox started working again, too.

So just standard macOS behavior at that point.

[robertoandrade]

With the latest Beta 4, I'm able to start the VM from the command line (ie: via vagrant up) but still can't start it from the VB GUI. I get this weird error even while creating a brand new VM:

Could not launch a process for the machine 'test' (VERR_FILE_NOT_FOUND).

Result Code: 
VBOX_E_IPRT_ERROR (0x80BB0005)
Component: 
MachineWrap
Interface: 
IMachine {85cd948e-a71f-4289-281e-0ca7ad48cd89}

Anyone else experiencing this?

[robertoandrade]

ok, I was able to confirm that via the GUI if you start the VM in headless mode it works, so only Normal mode seems to be the problem now.

[Socratis]

@robertoandrade
Please don't use the ticket for generic discussions. That's what the ​VirtualBox forums are for...

[l3x]

@socratis Please don't kill a discussion thread without providing a direct link to the rest of the conversation.

I'm experiencing issues running virtualbox and found this discussion very useful.

Telling @robertoandrade to continue this useful discussion in a forum (without providing a direct link) makes it very difficult for people trying to follow this discussion to follow the rest of the story.

Is VirtualBox supported in Mojave? If so, with what limitations? How do we get past the limitations to get it working? Do I have to refrain from upgrading (and keep running High Sierra) in order to keep using VirtualBox? What versions will actually work? Under what conditions? For how long?

[Socratis]

Replying to l3x:

@socratis
Please don't kill a discussion thread without providing a direct link to the rest of the conversation.

I'm sorry, but what "rest of conversation" are you referring to? The ticket was closed when Apple took appropriate action and allowed VirtualBox > 5.2.14. There's nothing more to discuss about this specific issue. It's fixed and closed. Done...

If you're referring to my comment in response to 'robertoandrade', I wasn't killing the discussion. 'robertoandrade' was talking about something completely different and I pointed them to the forums, that's where the discussions take place to begin with. NOT on the bugtracker, on the forums! It's in the name actually: forums. ;)

I'm experiencing issues running virtualbox and found this discussion very useful.

You can't be possibly facing the same issues that this ticket is referring to. No way, unless you're using a 10.14 b3 with VirtualBox < 5.2.14. In which case, you shouldn't!

It's usually better and faster, if issues get first addressed in the ​VirtualBox forums, a lot more eyes there. More than 95% of the issues are resolved over there, which keeps the developers focusing on the bug fixes and enhancements, and there is no need for another ticket to keep track of.

Telling @robertoandrade to continue this useful discussion in a forum (without providing a direct link) makes it very difficult for people trying to follow this discussion to follow the rest of the story.

Telling @robertoandrade to discuss an unrelated issue in the forums it the exact thing I should be telling them, for two reasons:

1. A ticket doesn't cover all the user's issues. It's going to turn into a mess of a discussion with no clear focus and purpose.
2. The bugtracker is not the place for discussions, as we've discussed previously. See above...

A direct link to the forums? I *included* one in my reply!!! But, OK, fine, here they are. Again...:

• ​VirtualBox forums
• ​VirtualBox on Mac OS X Hosts
• ​Using VirtualBox
  

Is VirtualBox supported in Mojave?

Again, look at the title of the thread and the thread's resolve. You'll figure out that the answer is a "Yes".

If so, with what limitations?

None that we know of.

How do we get past the limitations to get it working?

What limitations are you referring to? The imaginary ones that you just invented?

Do I have to refrain from upgrading (and keep running High Sierra) in order to keep using VirtualBox?

Upgrading or not, that's up to you. But, as far as VirtualBox is concerned, there are no issues.

What versions will actually work?

Anything > 5.2.14. The current release is 5.2.18.

Under what conditions?

Normal, overcast. Not drizzling, raining or snowing. The latter ones have a tendency to make things ... humid. Computers don't like humidity too much.

For how long?

For how long??? Until your computer dies, or you decide to get a new one. Or, by Toutatis, until ​the sky falls in our heads! What kind of question is that? Are you looking for "guarantees" that this combination will work for eternity?

Please if you have any more questions, head to the forums... This ticket was resolved successfully and there's absolutely no reason to keep the discussion going on here.