macOS 12 Monterey on Unsupported Macs Thread

[deeveedee]

... and Big Sur 11.7.10 just released as well. Not sure where to post this, but if any Devs are monitoring this, there is Dortania documentation that provides MaxKernel examples that are invalid, given that Apple's release can be numbered beyond X.X.9. For example, This Dortania documentation provides an example of setting MaxKernel to 19.9.9. MaxKernel limits must be in the form X.99.99.

 

[headlessmike]

... and Big Sur 11.7.10 just released as well. Not sure where to post this, but if any Devs are monitoring this, there is Dortania documentation that provides MaxKernel examples that are invalid, given that Apple's release can be numbered beyond X.X.9. For example, This Dortania documentation provides an example of setting MaxKernel to 19.9.9. MaxKernel limits must be in the form X.99.99.

There is a similar thread devoted to running Big Sur using OCLP. But I don't think that 11.7.10 will cause any issues here. The Kernel version is not the same as the OS version. Big Sur 11.7.9 uses Darwin Kernel version 20.6.0, for instance. I'm updating my Big Sur machine as we speak, so we'll see how that goes.

 

[deeveedee]

I agree that this is posted in the wrong thread - not sure where to post suggestions for Open Core. I'm not saying that Kernel Version and OS Version are the same. I'm simply saying that maxKernel Version in the OC config.plist must be specified in X.99.99 format (not X.9.9 format).

The SampleCustom.plist in Open Core 0.9.5 Docs even has an incorrect example of maxKernel (22.9.9). The example should be 22.99.99.

EDIT: Note that OCLP generates the Open Core config.plist using the proper notation for MaxKernel:

I've only seen the discrepancy in Dortania Open Core documentation.

 

[headlessmike]

I agree that this is posted in the wrong thread - not sure where to post suggestions for Open Core. I'm not saying that Kernel Version and OS Version are the same. I'm simply saying that maxKernel Version in the OC config.plist must be specified in X.99.99 format (not X.9.9 format).

The SampleCustom.plist in Open Core 0.9.5 Docs even has an incorrect example of maxKernel (22.9.9). The example should be 22.99.99.

View attachment 2258915

EDIT: Note that OCLP generates the Open Core config.plist using the proper notation for MaxKernel:
View attachment 2258917

I've only seen the discrepancy in Dortania Open Core documentation.

Ah, so your comment wasn't directly connected to the latest round of macOS updates, but the documentation in general? I got caught off guard by the first comment about 11.7.10 being released.

 

[deeveedee]

Monterey 12.7 prerelease is available to developers.

 

[TimmuJapan]

Why did they change from 12.6 to 12.7….in terms of numbers?

.6 —> .7?

is there something fundamental that changed?

 

[deeveedee]

I may be going out on a limb, but probably for reasons similar to going from 12.5 -> 12.6.

 

[eVasilis]

deleted

 

[8BitEnthusiast]

Hi folks,

My install of Monterey 12.6.5 on 5,1 with OCLP 0.6.2 has been quite solid since I installed it several months ago, but occasionally I get kernel panics (see condensed backtrace below). I think the Wi-Fi driver is the last thing executing on the panicked thread, if I understand the backtrace correctly. All panic reports have identical backtraces. My machine has an upgraded wi-fi ac card (BCM94360CD).

The root cause of the panic, which seems related to a failed memory block copy operation, might point at a RAM/hardware problem (I think), so not 100% sure this is a driver issue. However, after scanning this forum, I am realizing that recent OCLP versions like 0.6.2 might have de-stabilized Monterey. Any attempt on my part to downgrade by re-building OpenCore with a previous version of OCLP (tried 0.4.11 and 0.5.x) and installing to disk has resulted in wi-fi getting disabled after reboot, and an error pops up in the network preferences for wi-fi. It seems only 0.6.2 gets it to work... for a while anyway, until the next panic.

Any insight on what is going on? Any help would be appreciated!

*** panic report ***

panic(cpu 2 caller 0xffffff800b5044f0): __memcpy_chk object size check failed: dst 0xffffff9040ffe4a0, src 0xffffff9040a11494, (1024 < 1884) u/subrs.c:606
Panicked task 0xffffff8b757bf670: 275 threads: pid 0: kernel_task
Backtrace (CPU 2), panicked thread: 0xffffff9503731540, Frame : Return Address
0xffffffb916ab37e0 : 0xffffff800b67befd mach_kernel : _handle_debugger_trap + 0x41d
0xffffffb916ab3830 : 0xffffff800b7de636 mach_kernel : _kdp_i386_trap + 0x116
0xffffffb916ab3870 : 0xffffff800b7cd9a3 mach_kernel : _kernel_trap + 0x4d3
0xffffffb916ab38c0 : 0xffffff800b61ba70 mach_kernel : _return_from_trap + 0xe0
0xffffffb916ab38e0 : 0xffffff800b67c2cd mach_kernel : _DebuggerTrapWithState + 0xad
0xffffffb916ab3a00 : 0xffffff800b67ba86 mach_kernel : _panic_trap_to_debugger + 0x2b6
0xffffffb916ab3a60 : 0xffffff800bf14983 mach_kernel : _panic + 0x84
0xffffffb916ab3b50 : 0xffffff800b5044f0
0xffffffb916ab3b70 : 0xffffff800d4ecae4 com.apple.iokit.IO80211FamilyLegacy : __ZN18IO80211ScanManager8scanDoneEb + 0x104
0xffffffb916ab3be0 : 0xffffff800d4d4dc7 com.apple.iokit.IO80211FamilyLegacy : __ZN16IO80211Interface11postMessageEjPvm + 0x9a3
0xffffffb916ab3c50 : 0xffffff800d83f2a3 com.apple.driver.AirPort.BrcmNIC : _wlc_scan_callback + 0x5c
0xffffffb916ab3c90 : 0xffffff800d83cae6 com.apple.driver.AirPort.BrcmNIC : _wlc_scantimer + 0xb7d
0xffffffb916ab3db0 : 0xffffff800d5fc3ba com.apple.driver.AirPort.BrcmNIC : __ZL17wl_timer_callbackP8OSObjectP18IOTimerEventSource + 0x80
0xffffffb916ab3dd0 : 0xffffff800be49ca5 mach_kernel : __ZN18IOTimerEventSource15timeoutSignaledEPvS0_ + 0xa5
0xffffffb916ab3e40 : 0xffffff800be49ba8 mach_kernel : __ZN18IOTimerEventSource17timeoutAndReleaseEPvS0_ + 0xc8
0xffffffb916ab3e70 : 0xffffff800b6cef75 mach_kernel : _thread_call_delayed_timer + 0x505
0xffffffb916ab3ee0 : 0xffffff800b6d0042 mach_kernel : _thread_call_delayed_timer + 0x15d2
0xffffffb916ab3fa0 : 0xffffff800b61b19e mach_kernel : _call_continuation + 0x2e

I figured out the root cause and fix for that kernel panic and reporting it here in case some one else ever gets the same symptom (seems to be a rare occurence). There seems to be a bug in the native wi-fi driver. When I looked at the advanced settings of wi-fi's preferences, the 'preferred networks' section was loaded with all the networks I ever connected to. The list was huge, and came from Keychain sync through iCloud. Clearing that network list, and disabling keychain sync completely to prevent the list from re-loading, completely stabilized the wi-fi driver. My best guess, looking at the kernel panic's error, is that a list that large resulted in some kind of string buffer overflow.

I also found that AirportBrcmFixup interferes with my upgraded BCM94360CD wi-fi/bt card. Manually disabling that kext in config.plist after OCLP built the EFI partition allowed me to run any version of OCLP between 0.4.11 and 0.6.2 with wi-fi fully enabled. I probably won't test other versions of OCLP until I decide to move to Ventura.

My turn to relay my thanks to the OCLP and Open Core developers for allowing me to run Monterey on my cMP 5,1!

 

[thibsweb]

Hi, just a report that I am getting stuck on is 12.6.9 update screen, when the progress bar reaches the middle of the bar. Waited a few hours but did not helped. OS volume is unbootable so I’ll probably need a complete reinstall. Be very cautious with this one !

 

[HDMC]

Hi, just a report that I am getting stuck on is 12.6.9 update screen, when the progress bar reaches the middle of the bar. Waited a few hours but did not helped. OS volume is unbootable so I’ll probably need a complete reinstall. Be very cautious with this one !

Same here !
Did a fresh install on an iMac 2011 and the progress bar reaches 1/4 and then stop ...
Interrestimg is I had 12.6.8 installed and upgraded to 13.5.2 without any problems.
I went back to 12.6.9 because of an firewire problem with Ventura.
Is it confrmed that Ventura does not work with firewire anymore ?

 

[Giovamille959]

Hi,
just asking:
did you experience any problem after the installation's process, like, a little slow grafic movemet as you open and close folders or change desktops, or microphone and camera no accessable from any app? I own a MBP 8,2 with Snow Leopard, El Capitan and Monterey. The newest one has these issues but OCLP shows that all possible patches are already installed. I've tryed everything possible found on the net but nothing. On my iMac 2011 it run just fine and both Macs have ssd + RAM updrade.
Peace

Hi,
just asking:
did you experience any problem after the installation's process, like, a little slow grafic movemet as you open and close folders or change desktops, or microphone and camera no accessable from any app? I own a MBP 8,2 with Snow Leopard, El Capitan and Monterey. The newest one has these issues but OCLP shows that all possible patches are already installed. I've tryed everything possible found on the net but nothing. On my iMac 2011 it run just fine and both Macs have ssd + RAM updrade.
Peace

I had problem just with "ZOOM": microphone and camera was not accessible. I fixed with a procedure from deeveedee:

Procedure to fix apps' authorisation

 

[reppresident]

excuse me. anybody who has upgrade from big sur to monterey over the air? i got several plugins installed and want to avoid reinstall them all. im on mac pro 5.1 with oclp 0.4.11 and big sur 11.7.7 on nvme on pex8747 adapter, wifi and bt upgraded and polaris rx 460 running all 100%. Thnx anyway.

Sorry if this is too dumb to get any atenttion. Its just too important to me. Thnx anyway

 

[deeveedee]

@reppresident I was hoping that someone with a MP5,1 would respond. I'll give it a shot...

I don't know how much you know, so I'll assume you know what you're doing.

If you have enough disk space, your safest option is to add a new APFS volume. Install Monterey in the new APFS volume and as the last step of the Monterey installation (before applying OCLP post-install patches), migrate data/apps/settings from Big Sur to your new Monterey installation. Then apply OCLP post-install patches to Monterey and boot your new Monterey. You'll have both Big Sur and Monterey boot options, so you won't have to eliminate Big Sur until you're certain that Monterey works for you.

You indicated that you are using OCLP 0.4.11. That may still work fine for you, so you can try keeping your existing OC EFI. After installing/migrating Monterey, apply OCLP 0.4.11 post-install patches.

My preference is to use OCLP 0.6.8 (the current official release). Use whatever works for you.

 

[reppresident]

@reppresident I was hoping that someone with a MP5,1 would respond. I'll give it a shot...

I don't know how much you know, so I'll assume you know what you're doing.

If you have enough disk space, your safest option is to add a new APFS volume. Install Monterey in the new APFS volume and as the last step of the Monterey installation (before applying OCLP post-install patches), migrate data/apps/settings from Big Sur to your new Monterey installation. Then apply OCLP post-install patches to Monterey and boot your new Monterey. You'll have both Big Sur and Monterey boot options, so you won't have to eliminate Big Sur until you're certain that Monterey works for you.

You indicated that you are using OCLP 0.4.11. That may still work fine for you, so you can try keeping your existing OC EFI. After installing/migrating Monterey, apply OCLP 0.4.11 post-install patches.

My preference is to use OCLP 0.6.8 (the current official release). Use whatever works for you.

thank you. i believe my config aint need post install patch for big sur ( for sure ) or monterey ( i guess ). im sure all plugins and daw im using are fully compatible with monterey too, i just want to avoid reinstall em all and do a ota upgrade instead. i just dont know if its adviseable do it that way. its my main audio production machine and it have been solid with big sur but some plugins start to be monterey minimum requirements yet. Thank you again for your atention and reply.

 

[deeveedee]

@reppresident Even if you don't need OCLP post-install patches, you can use the migration as your safest option. Add the APFS volume, install Monterey in the new APFS volume and as the last step of the Monterey install, migrate data/apps/settings from Big Sur. Then you'll have both Big Sur and Monterey installations. This preserves your Big Sur installation (leaving it untouched) and allows you to experiment with Monterey until you're certain that Monterey works for you.

 

[reppresident]

@reppresident Even if you don't need OCLP post-install patches, you can use the migration as your safest option. Add the APFS volume, install Monterey in the new APFS volume and as the last step of the Monterey install, migrate data/apps/settings from Big Sur. Then you'll have both Big Sur and Monterey installations. This preserves your Big Sur installation (leaving it untouched) and allows you to experiment with Monterey until you're certain that Monterey works for you.

i've never did anything like this before but google it and looks pretty easy indeed. thank you again fam. You rock!!

 

[dono42]

Successful update 12.6.8 -> 12.7 on cMP 5,1 OCLP 0.4.11 about :35, three reboots.

 

[Dylan33x]

Why did they change from 12.6 to 12.7….in terms of numbers?

.6 —> .7?

is there something fundamental that changed?

Wondering the same seeing as they went .10 for the last Big Sur release

 

[Frixo Cool]

Just to report that upgrade from 12.6.8 to 12.7 went smooth for my Mac Pro 5,1.

It's a long one, over half an hour with several restarts. All is running fine after root patches reinstall. I am using latest OCLP 0.6.8.

 

[h9826790]

Wondering the same seeing as they went .10 for the last Big Sur release

I think once Sonoma released, Big Sur will become obsolete, and no more security update.

 

[antifocus]

Also updated from 12.6.8 to 12.7 on my IVB macbook pro, seems just a standard security update and everything went smoothly.

 

[m4v3r1ck]

Smooth update using OCLP 0.5.0.

 

[Dylan33x]

I think once Sonoma released, Big Sur will become obsolete, and no more security update.

it didn't receive any security updates this week, despite Monterey receiving some. Safe to say it's done. still didn't really answer my question.

 

[deeveedee]

it didn't receive any security updates this week, despite Monterey receiving some. Safe to say it's done. still didn't really answer my question.

How could that prediction not have been helpful? 😂