[pre-release] macOS Sequoia

[Cyberdevs]

22 hours ago, robi62 said:

hi do you know if any version for sequoia have the Haswell patch included 

the one I use has not so cannot apply wireless coz it has errors

This error might be because of the OCLP itself, when you open the OCLP does it install the services required for the OCLP at first run or not? if not download the latest nightly version, delete the previous version, open the latest OCLP that you've downloaded and it should install all the required files to run OCLP properly.

[robi62]

10 hours ago, Cyberdevs said:

This error might be because of the OCLP itself, when you open the OCLP does it install the services required for the OCLP at first run or not? if not download the latest nightly version, delete the previous version, open the latest OCLP that you've downloaded and it should install all the required files to run OCLP properly.

where do I download the latest version from???

[Max.1974]

@robi62 

 

Here the last version: https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/actions/runs/9953580191 

 

Need login in Git Hub and download OpenCore-Patcher.app (GUI) 

 

I recommend this version. Is that works fine to me.

 

https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/actions/runs/9783955206 

 

But is better test (try) last version first, like @Cyberdevs said above! 

 

Don’t forget kexts 

 

 

 

[miliuco]

@eSaF

I remember reading that Continuity Camera by wifi causes a sudden reboot but by cable works. Is that so, or didn't I read it in your message?

I say this because that's what happens to me, by wifi >> sudden reboot and by cable >> it works.

[eSaF]

1 minute ago, miliuco said:

@eSaF

I remember reading that Continuity Camera by wifi causes a sudden reboot but by cable works. Is that so, or didn't I read it in your message?

I say this because that's what happens to me, by wifi >> sudden reboot and by cable >> it works.

Mine also works with USB cable no problem but wireless causes my machine to lock up.

No keyboard or mouse movement. The only way is a hard reset/boot.

 

The curious thing is both in USB and wireless connection works in Sonoma without any problem.

I don't know if that is a missing component in this OCLP remake for Sequoia. I tried the latest OCLP 1.6.0 Nightly version thinking maybe there will be a fix.

Unfortunately I cannot get the latest one to patch Sequoia, only the previous version.

[miliuco]

@eSaF

Yes, mine works on Sonoma. I don't know it it has to do with OCLP patch or any other system files that are not the same on Sequoia.

Tried with latest sequoia-development OCLP branch (4f44737).

 

Edited July 20 by miliuco
Fix typo

[eSaF]

1 minute ago, miliuco said:

@eSaF

Yes, mine works on Sonoma. I don't know it it has to do with OCLP patch or any other system files that are not the same on Sequoia.

I am hoping as development is still on going with OCLP, the situation will be fixed in the OCLP 1.6.0 official release.

[galisrule]

44 minutes ago, eSaF said:

Mine also works with USB cable no problem but wireless causes my machine to lock up.

No keyboard or mouse movement. The only way is a hard reset/boot.

 

The curious thing is both in USB and wireless connection works in Sonoma without any problem.

I don't know if that is a missing component in this OCLP remake for Sequoia. I tried the latest OCLP 1.6.0 Nightly version thinking maybe there will be a fix.

Unfortunately I cannot get the latest one to patch Sequoia, only the previous version.

it don't

Just now, galisrule said:

it don't

non of the OCLP patches sequoia on  hashwells real Macs as yet either   

[cankiulascmnfye]

On 7/18/2024 at 10:35 PM, deeveedee said:

@cankiulascmnfye I'm not sure what to say.  Read my statement again?

 

EDIT: It is clear that 0x67 is from a CLOVER EFI that was attempting to fully disable SIP.  See here for a refresher.  Again, I won't go so far as to say that it is lucky that this same CLOVER bit-pattern works in OC.

 

There is no such thing as a "Clover bit-pattern" – it's called a "bitmask"!  The only difference is that Clover requires the bitmask to be entered in Big Endian, whereas OpenCore require Little Endian!

 

So 0x67 is still valid bit mask when converted to Little Endian (67000000) – it's just old and was used in macOS Sierra. That's why I suggested trying 0x867 (67 08 00 00) instead, since  used before for booting were missing from the mask. One look at my screenshot should have made this clear. And: SIP is never "fully" disabled for applying root patches.

 

Side-Note: OCLP stil uses Big Endian to display the SIP bitmask before it's converted to Little Endian:

 

So, definitely not me who needs a refresher!

[miliuco]

Okey, OCLP window displays SIP bitmask as Big Endian 0x803 and we must enter it in OpenCore config.plist as Little Endian 03080000.

Without this value, OCLP refuses to apply root patch. E.g. 67080000 is not valid for OCLP. 

OCLP accepts 67080000 (0x867) to apply root patch. I was wrong.

Edited July 21 by miliuco
Fix typo

[deeveedee]

[Deleted] @cankiulascmnfye You're right.  I'm wrong.  You win.  I'm ashamed of myself for using the term "bit pattern" when clearly I should be using the term "bit mask."  Please forgive me for this incredible oversight.  We're very lucky to have you in this forum.

Edited July 21 by deeveedee

[deeveedee]

@rv-abz Herve - is that you?!?! Welcome back!  You have no idea how happy I am to see you again.

 

EDIT: @rv-abz Herve - I never thanked you before and it's long overdue.  You alone were my motivation for creating my working sleep/wake solution for Dell Latitude E6410 (High Sierra, then Mojave with CLOVER at the time).  It is now running Sequoia (with Open Core).  When I was new to ACPI patching, I remember you told me on Latitude-OSX that "if no one has found a sleep/wake solution by now, no one is going to find one."  That was all the motivation I needed.  Thank you.  So happy to see that you still follow me.

Edited July 22 by deeveedee

[deeveedee]

7 hours ago, miliuco said:

Okey, OCLP window displays SIP bitmask as Big Endian 0x803 and we must enter it in OpenCore config.plist as Little Endian 03080000. Without this value, OCLP refuses to apply root patch. E.g. 67080000 is not valid for OCLP. 

Please don't say that I ever came to @cankiulascmnfye 's defense (and if anyone says so, I'll deny it and claim that my account was hacked and that someone else typed this).  His proposed SIP configuration is valid for OCLP (look at the bit mask again).   While he (and apparently now @rv-abz ) are unable to comprehend my point about the confusion between CLOVER and OC SIP settings, he did get this one right.  You know what they say about the blind squirrel.  Now if @rv-abz would stop posting the sad emoji's on all of my posts, I could put this issue behind me.

 

EDIT: I was confident enough in my statement that I posted before testing.  I just tested to confirm and, yes, OCLP still applies post-install patches on my HackBookPro6,2 with Open Core's csr-active-config = <67080000>.

 

@cankiulascmnfye I am not going to attempt to explain to you what is an obvious mix-up of CLOVER and Open Core SIP settings.  Carefully review my previous posts to figure it out.

Edited July 21 by deeveedee

[miliuco]

@deeveedee "I just tested to confirm and, yes, OCLP still applies post-install patches on my HackBookPro6,2 with Open Core's csr-active-config = <67080000>"

 

I was pretty sure that 03080000 was mandatory for OCLP patch. At least that's what I've read in many places so far. But if you have tried it and it works... nothing more to say. I'll try it too.

I don't have enough knowledge to compare both values in terms of their meaning as bitmask and the values that csrutil can have. Maybe both values are not as different as they seem when simply comparing their numbers.

 

Corpnewt has a Terminal app BitmaskDecode, here I can see:

Please type a CsrActiveConfig value (use 0x prefix for hex):  0x803

Active values for 0x803 (2,051) :

CSR_ALLOW_UNTRUSTED_KEXTS      - 0x1 (1) 
CSR_ALLOW_UNRESTRICTED_FS      - 0x2 (2) 
CSR_ALLOW_UNAUTHENTICATED_ROOT - 0x800 (2,048) 

Please type a CsrActiveConfig value (use 0x prefix for hex):  0x867

Active values for 0x867 (2,151) :

CSR_ALLOW_UNTRUSTED_KEXTS      - 0x1 (1) 
CSR_ALLOW_UNRESTRICTED_FS      - 0x2 (2) 
CSR_ALLOW_TASK_FOR_PID         - 0x4 (4) 
CSR_ALLOW_UNRESTRICTED_DTRACE  - 0x20 (32) 
CSR_ALLOW_UNRESTRICTED_NVRAM   - 0x40 (64) 
CSR_ALLOW_UNAUTHENTICATED_ROOT - 0x800 (2,048)

As you can see, settings are different. Maybe OCLP accepts more than 1 value if the minimum required (0x803) is included but I'm not sure.

Edited July 21 by miliuco

[PC IT]

Hi to all, Can i install Macos Sequoia on this Imac? i need help and info please, Regards 

 

 

 

 

 

[miliuco]

@PC IT

Not for now (I guess) because OCLP has no fix yet for Skylake on Sequoia.

https://github.com/dortania/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/issues/1136

Edited July 21 by miliuco

[miliuco]

@deeveedee

I can also apply root patch with csr-active-config=67080000. I will never go to bed without learning one more thing 

[cankiulascmnfye]

9 hours ago, miliuco said:

Okey, OCLP window displays SIP bitmask as Big Endian 0x803 and we must enter it in OpenCore config.plist as Little Endian 03080000. Without this value, OCLP refuses to apply root patch. E.g. 67080000 is not valid for OCLP. 

 

You are wrong. Completely wrong! 67080000 includes all the flags from 03080000 plus additional flags.

 

Fact is: the user could not boot with 03080000

But he could boot with 6700000

Well why is that? Hmm, maybe because 0308000 does not include all of the flags from his previous bitmask?!

 

Let me do the math for you: 67 plus the 800 for Unauthenticated Root = 67080000

 

Understanding bitmasks is not about REPEATING what some guide say but actually understanding the concepts behind it! And from your statement "we must" it's clear you haven't understood the concept of the bitmask: 03080000 is the absolute minimum mask required for applying root patches, not the absolute max! 

Edited July 21 by cankiulascmnfye

[deeveedee]

@miliuco You and me both.

[miliuco]

@cankiulascmnfye

I did edit my post 29 min ago, now it's so:

 

"Without this value, OCLP refuses to apply root patch. E.g. 67080000 is not valid for OCLP. 

OCLP accepts 67080000 (0x867) to apply root patch. I was wrong."

 

And a later post:

 

"I don't have enough knowledge to compare both values in terms of their meaning as bitmask and the values that csrutil can have"

 

But I understand your post and the idea of 0x803 as a minimum required. And that 0x867 is a higher hex number.

 

23 minutes ago, deeveedee said:

@miliuco You and me both.

Do you and me both learn one new thing a day or do we not understand the bit mask concept? Or maybe both? (too much both in the text).

Edited July 21 by miliuco

[Stefanalmare]

3 hours ago, miliuco said:

@deeveedee "I just tested to confirm and, yes, OCLP still applies post-install patches on my HackBookPro6,2 with Open Core's csr-active-config = <67080000>"

 

I was pretty sure that 03080000 was mandatory for OCLP patch. At least that's what I've read in many places so far. But if you have tried it and it works... nothing more to say. I'll try it too.

I don't have enough knowledge to compare both values in terms of their meaning as bitmask and the values that csrutil can have. Maybe both values are not as different as they seem when simply comparing their numbers.

 

Corpnewt has a Terminal app BitmaskDecode, here I can see:

Please type a CsrActiveConfig value (use 0x prefix for hex):  0x803

Active values for 0x803 (2,051) :

CSR_ALLOW_UNTRUSTED_KEXTS      - 0x1 (1) 
CSR_ALLOW_UNRESTRICTED_FS      - 0x2 (2) 
CSR_ALLOW_UNAUTHENTICATED_ROOT - 0x800 (2,048) 

Please type a CsrActiveConfig value (use 0x prefix for hex):  0x867

Active values for 0x867 (2,151) :

CSR_ALLOW_UNTRUSTED_KEXTS      - 0x1 (1) 
CSR_ALLOW_UNRESTRICTED_FS      - 0x2 (2) 
CSR_ALLOW_TASK_FOR_PID         - 0x4 (4) 
CSR_ALLOW_UNRESTRICTED_DTRACE  - 0x20 (32) 
CSR_ALLOW_UNRESTRICTED_NVRAM   - 0x40 (64) 
CSR_ALLOW_UNAUTHENTICATED_ROOT - 0x800 (2,048)

As you can see, settings are different. Maybe OCLP accepts more than 1 value if the minimum required (0x803) is included but I'm not sure.

 

I really don't understand this controversy. OCLP dev's found that 03080000 is the the smallest possible security breach for OCLP patch. Really? You have time to spend......

Edited July 21 by Stefanalmare

[Irish_Man]

I've noticed there is an app in Applications folder called "ImagePlayground.app" but you can see it only if you unhide hidden files. 

I guess that's the app that will enable AI-generated image creation. At least on devices with Apple chip.

[deeveedee]

6 hours ago, miliuco said:

Do you and me both learn one new thing a day or do we not understand the bit mask concept? Or maybe both? (too much both in the text).

 

Me and bitmasks go way back. We're on a first name basis (which is why they don't mind me calling them bit patterns).  I just meant that I am always learning and never want to stop.  

 

As Stefanalmare would say, sto imparando sempre. 

 

EDIT: @miliuco and @cankiulascmnfye it is incorrect to call csr-active-config or the value assigned to csr-active-config a bitmask.  The term bitmask has a very specific meaning that describes a bit pattern that is used to "mask" bits in another value.  Typically, the ones in the bitmask correspond with the enabled or relevant bits in the value (bit field) being masked.  A bitmask has no meaning by itself. A bitmask  cannot express a value until it is logically combined with another value (either ANDed, ORed or XORed).  Read this.  We frequently conflate bitmasks with bitfields in this forum, but this is the first time that I've actually seen anyone care.  A more accurate term for the SIP value is a bit field.  Read more here.  Khronokernel actually refers to the SIP value as a bit field.  It is rather pathetic and ironic that we have had individuals berated in this forum for incorrect terminology, when the person doing the berating was in fact themselves using incorrect terminology.  No matter how many exclamation marks are added to the statement (and there were many), csr-active-config is NOT a bitmask.  See here for a definition of bitfield.

Edited July 22 by deeveedee

[miliuco]

2 hours ago, Stefanalmare said:

I really don't understand this controversy. OCLP dev's found that 03080000 is the smallest possible security breach for OCLP patch. Really? You have time to spend......

You're right. Older man, retired, Hackintosh as a big hobby... what else can I do? 

But I keep this sentence which is an excellent summary of the situation and I had never thought about it like this: "03080000 is the smallest possible security breach for OCLP patch".

[Max.1974]

@Miliuco @Deeveedee i was thinking that you can try 00000000 SIP totally enable will works, but @miliuco said not. (edited)

 

Spoiler

 

Edited July 21 by Max.1974