no chrome://flags visible after successful installation

lug9417 commented 5 years ago

Problem: I have a Dell Venue Pro 11 7140. I installed Chrome OS on it following the tutorial.

I'm very unsure if this is even the right place for this issue or if it is a chrome os bug but:

When I navigate to chrome://flags I'm only presented with the site's top part with the searchbar but no flags that I can enable. Everything below the search bar is just empty. Typing in the searchbar changes nothing.

What I tried so far to fix it based on answers I found googling (but nothing worked):

Launch Incognito mode and go to chrome://flags -> no change
launch guest session from login screen -> flags are visible, changes apply to current session, but are not persisted to my user account
powerwash -> no change
log in with a second gmail account that I have -> also see no flags

If this has nothing to do with the "chromification" process an is a chrome bug, just let me know and close this issue.

ghost commented 5 years ago

Can confirm that it's not working for me either. Pretty annoying.

NSbuilder commented 5 years ago

Not working for me either...

fishgrind commented 5 years ago

same problems here, flags are empty only the search and reset is available, and installing Linux fails with, "Error starting virtual machine"

Dell Venue 11 Pro

**edit: mine started working a few days later by itself... Linux still not working but i think that has something to do with my base arnold the bat image

MuntashirAkon commented 5 years ago

Not working for me either.

MuntashirAkon commented 5 years ago

According to a dev, chrome://flags doesn't show up if the command-line switches did not match the flags (in general). Then he said ignoring "signin profile" should fix it. I don't know what "signin profile" really means, but as far as I understand, it's something to do with user login, which is why it doesn't affect the guest mode.

Since you can easily add a flag using /etc/chrome_dev.conf, it doesn't really matter if flags shows up there or not.

NSbuilder commented 5 years ago

as far as I understand, it's something to do with user login

Maybe it has to do with the way the image was created? I used CAROLINE image instead of the TPM emulator.

MuntashirAkon commented 5 years ago

Maybe it has to do with the way the image was created? I used CAROLINE image instead of the TPM emulator.

I don't think so. There's an active issue in the @arnoldthebat's repo which describes the same problem.

EDIT:

Here's the Command Line section of the about page when logged in as a user:

/opt/google/chrome/chrome --ppapi-flash-path=/opt/google/chrome/pepper/libpepflashplayer.so --ppapi-flash-version=32.0.0.142 --ui-prioritize-in-gpu-process --use-gl=egl --enable-native-gpu-memory-buffers --enable-webgl-image-chromium --enable-features=Pepper3DImageChromium,PointerEvent,MachineLearningService,ChromeOSAssistant,EnableBackgroundBlur,Crostini,ExperimentalCrostiniUI --gpu-sandbox-failures-fatal=no --enable-logging --log-level=1 --use-cras --enable-wayland-server --user-data-dir=/home/chronos --system-developer-mode --login-profile=user --has-chromeos-keyboard --enable-touchview --guest-wallpaper-large=/usr/share/chromeos-assets/wallpaper/guest_large.jpg --guest-wallpaper-small=/usr/share/chromeos-assets/wallpaper/guest_small.jpg --child-wallpaper-large=/usr/share/chromeos-assets/wallpaper/child_large.jpg --child-wallpaper-small=/usr/share/chromeos-assets/wallpaper/child_small.jpg --default-wallpaper-large=/usr/share/chromeos-assets/wallpaper/oem_large.jpg --default-wallpaper-small=/usr/share/chromeos-assets/wallpaper/oem_small.jpg --default-wallpaper-is-oem --arc-availability=officially-supported --enable-arc-oobe-optin --enable-arc-oobe-optin-no-skip --enterprise-enrollment-initial-modulus=15 --enterprise-enrollment-modulus-limit=19 --login-manager --first-exec-after-boot --vmodule=*arc/*=1,existing_user_controller=2,*/ash/wm/tablet_mode/*=1,nss_cert_database_chromeos=1,*/assistant/*=1,*chromeos/login/*=1,auto_enrollment_controller=1,*/ui/ozone/*=1,*/ui/display/manager/chromeos/*=1,*night_light*=1,update_engine=1,component_updater_service=1,power_button_observer=2,webui_login_view=2,lock_state_controller=2,webui_screen_locker=2,screen_locker=2 --enable-features=Pepper3DImageChromium,PointerEvent,MachineLearningService,ChromeOSAssistant,EnableBackgroundBlur,Crostini,ExperimentalCrostiniUI

Interestingly, I don't find any --login-user flag and --login-profile is set to user not 910450b5b86edd74333ce14f446ec9c7a44301e0 (which is my current user profile). These behaviors don't match with the real Chrome OS (as far as I know).

In guest mode, however, theses switches are set exactly like a real Chrome OS. ~~This may be the root of this problem.~~ I found that doing a chrome://restart solved the above problem. However, the flags page was still blank.

NSbuilder commented 5 years ago

There is a thread on XDA: https://forum.xda-developers.com/hardware-hacking/chromebooks/blank-empty-chrome-flags-page-t3911200

It seemse to have something to do with TPM ( again... https://github.com/imperador/chromefy/issues/38#issuecomment-471211390)

fishgrind commented 5 years ago

@NSbuilder cheers that solved it for me on my Dell Venue 11 Pro 7130

MuntashirAkon commented 5 years ago

It seemse to have something to do with TPM ( again... #38 (comment))

In my case, TPM is working on Windows 10 as expected but not on Chrome OS. On Ubuntu, however, I'm getting the following error:

tpm_crb MSFT0101:00: [Firmware Bug]: ACPI region does not cover the entire command/response buffer.

Perhaps, TPM is Microsoft only?

@NSbuilder cheers that solved it for me on my Dell Venue 11 Pro 7130

How did you solve it?

fishgrind commented 5 years ago

@MuntashirAkon it depends on your bios.

I have TPM enabled, PTT disabled, and for TPM I only have it enabled I didn't enable TPM ACPI

Then again I have a Dell 7130, your Bios may be different.

Crescendo-BLYAT commented 5 years ago

Need to use swtpm.tar, currently working with ATB72 special build or FydeOS 6.0 or ATC v3...

Mine's working: ATB72 Special + Eve 73 + swtpm.tar

Can't do with Caroline ot hardware TPM on your laptop (can't even take ownership of the chip no matter what).

kbnhvn commented 5 years ago

@Crescendo-BLYAT

The latest swtpm from this git?

Crescendo-BLYAT commented 5 years ago

@Crescendo-BLYAT

The latest swtpm from this git?

exactly....

Crescendo-BLYAT commented 5 years ago

@arnoldthebat please include this in all of your builds to fix this flags issue for good: https://github.com/imperador/chromefy/blob/master/swtpm.tar

Its the only way that can work coz the BIOS of most laptop doesn't allow ownership takeover by non-windows OS.

arnoldthebat commented 5 years ago

Will do! I just need to get the time to make the ebuild to slipstream it into the build....

On Wed, 8 May 2019, 08:31 Crescendo, notifications@github.com wrote:

@arnoldthebat https://github.com/arnoldthebat please include this in all of your builds to fix this flags issue for good: https://github.com/imperador/chromefy/blob/master/swtpm.tar

Its the only way that can work coz the BIOS of most laptop doesn't allow ownership takeover by non-windows OS.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/imperador/chromefy/issues/40#issuecomment-490380552, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAZJKGK7YVVFGXZ4SBWOF6DPUJ6UBANCNFSM4GXYWDZA .

erenoglu commented 5 years ago

Hi @Crescendo-BLYAT, with swtpm, did ChromeOS take ownership of the software TPM? Or is it just able to create some root keys? (SRK etc.) I think the command shall be something like "trunks_client --status"

Crescendo-BLYAT commented 5 years ago

@erenoglu yes, it take ownership of the swTPM as the prob here is the OS unable to take ownership (or even access) the hwTPM...

erenoglu commented 5 years ago

Yes. I wonder why chromeos is not able to take ownership of the hardware module though, while it can for the swtpm.

I tried a lot, reset from windows, from Linux, from bios, none worked for me.

HW TPM is partially usable and chromeos creates SRK etc but not owned.

arnoldthebat commented 5 years ago

Ah this could be my lack of understanding. Are you saying, even with Hardware TPM, ChromiumOS fails to own it? So I would be better with software TPM regardless of whether the device supports hardware?

On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 08:01, Emre Erenoglu notifications@github.com wrote:

Yes. I wonder why chromeos is not able to take ownership of the hardware module though, while it can for the swtpm.

I tried a lot, reset from windows, from Linux, from bios, none worked for me.

HW TPM is partially usable and chromeos creates SRK etc but not owned.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/imperador/chromefy/issues/40?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAZJKGJC56MOQBDDQEJRMCTPXOBNBA5CNFSM4GXYWDZKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWI6XBI#issuecomment-496102277, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAZJKGLNYP6VMWQUGXQ6P2LPXOBNBANCNFSM4GXYWDZA .

erenoglu commented 5 years ago

Exactly, I have a TPM 2.0 hardware module driven by tpm_tis module. It works with Windows and Linux. In ChromeOS or ChromiumOS or FydeOS, after a BIOS clear, the tpm_tis module is loaded, and some root keys are installed on it and I can login to my system, but the TPM is never owned, hence it's not 100% working.

I'll try today once more, but I think there are others in my situation, that's why keeping vtpm module in kernel and having swtpm in the build would not hurt in my opinion. the vtpm service can be disabled / commented out by default and the affected people can turn it on manually.

arnoldthebat commented 5 years ago

OK, let me build a variant with the SWTPM installed and enabled, then we can run with both versions.

On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 14:53, Emre Erenoglu notifications@github.com wrote:

Exactly, I have a TPM 2.0 hardware module driven by tpm_tis module. It works with Windows and Linux. In ChromeOS or ChromiumOS or FydeOS, after a BIOS clear, the tpm_tis module is loaded, and some root keys are installed on it and I can login to my system, but the TPM is never owned, hence it's not 100% working.

I'll try today once more, but I think there are others in my situation, that's why keeping vtpm module in kernel and having swtpm in the build would not hurt in my opinion. the vtpm service can be disabled / commented out by default and the affected people can turn it on manually.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/imperador/chromefy/issues/40?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAZJKGLOHGOF2OIVDWHRV23PXPRWDA5CNFSM4GXYWDZKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODWJ3TCA#issuecomment-496220552, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAZJKGLC3DLCSIBH6SO5J6LPXPRWDANCNFSM4GXYWDZA .

GuzioMG commented 5 years ago

As far as I know, you need to open chrome://flags in incognito mode. This fixed my issue with my ArnoldTheBad special build, however, I'm not sure, will this also fix this problem on Chromefied CrOS.

erenoglu commented 5 years ago

So the latest on this is that the swtpm package with the vtpm service file works well, if you disable the TPM from BIOS and also blacklist its module & make a /bin/false module install.
/etc/modules.d/tpm.conf (for tis module)

install tpm_tis /bin/false
blacklist tpm_tis

Then the swtpm works at first boot and provides the tpm functions. All ChromeOS functions which require a TPM then starts working, including the chrome://flags

MuntashirAkon commented 5 years ago

I think this problem is solved and can be closed permanently.

erenoglu commented 5 years ago

Hi all, I see some new but critical commits in the swtpm original github page which also fixes some functions like below. I'm having trouble using it with new R76 images, so maybe could help: swtpm: Use writev_full rather than writev; fixes --vtpm-proxy EIO error...

Could anybody build a new swtpm.tar version from master branch? https://github.com/stefanberger/swtpm

imperador / chromefy

no chrome://flags visible after successful installation #40