Discuss the 5.0.6 release

[frank]

Discuss the 5.0.6 release here. See the changelog for details.

This release should fully support Mac OS X 10.11 (El Capitan), including capturing USB devices.

[neo_in_matrix]

Does this release support Windows 10?

[frank]

Yes, build 10240 RTM, though there might be still small issues.

[mpack]

Yes, build 10240 RTM, though there might be still small issues.

Can you clarify? I just checked, and the user manual still doesn't mention support for Windows 10, either as host or guest.

[RF2016]

Hello,

I have experienced with the latest build of VBox (5.0.6.r103037) that I can no longer assign specifically Vbox association of the Vbox NIC drivers for my second network adapter.....I have to use my primary adapter, where as the previous build, and ALL past builds Vbox allowed the secondary adapter in my system to be used, while my primary NIC I would disable the NIC drivers for Vbox...

Now it only sees my Intel CT desktop adapter.....and does not see my second adapter Intel 82579V ( Mother board integrated Gigabit).



Has anyone else experienced this with the latest build of Vbox?

[Martin]

Did you compare the adapter settings in the host that all needed Vbox protocols are installed/active?

[RF2016]

Yes, I had compared adapter settings, also tried disabling, and re-enabling, and also full uninstall - reinstall....Initially I just upgraded, as I normally do when a new release is available...and the adapter settings always worked, Primary LAN Vbox settings are disabled, and the VLAN adapter has the Vbox adater enabled.....Even though its enabled on the VLAN, it is not recognized by VBOX.,..Only the LAN adapter is recognized....Prior build/s there was never any problem....

[Martin]

In your first post you mentioned a second physical adapter. VLAN is something more, so there could be differences.

[RF2016]

VlAN is the name of the second adapter....No relevance to actual VLAN the technology...or Virtual LANs

Second adapter ( with the Vbox issue with latest build) is named VLAN.....and the gigabit chipset is Intel 82579V on the motherboard.

It worked with prior Vbox builds and was my main Physical NIC adapter used for Vbox, and VMware workstation. LAN ( named) primary adapter ( Intel CT nic) never has any Virtual NIC Drivers assigned from any virtualization technology.

[koshimagap]

Changelog for VBox 5.0.2 includes following bullet-item:

VMM: This release has AVX2 passthrough disabled on every host and AVX passthrough disabled for 64-bit VMs on 32-bit hosts. This will be properly fixed in a future 5.0.x maintenance release (see e.g. bug #14262).

Changelogs for subsequent VBox 5.0.4 and 5.0.6 do not mention fix to bug #14262 -- assume bug fix is still pending, correct?

Is there any planned release and timeline available for issuing bug fix?

[jbhur]

Virtual Box 5.0.6-103037
Host = Windows 7 x64, 32GB RAM
Guest = Linux (Mint), 2GB RAM, (and others)

All networking is IPv4.

After installing the latest update over top of the current working version (5.0.2-102096), launching the guest fails as Virtual Box can't find the physical network adapter used in the guest's bridged network
configuration. I've looked at numerous posts detailing similar behaviour and solutions regarding bridged networking in VB 5.x but I did not see any mention of the following observation.

The only adapters available for bridged networking in the guest's configuration are those with TCP/IP bound to the host's physical adapters. My host has 6 physical adapters installed and nominally, only one has
TCP/IP bound to it. The others, used for Virtual Box virtual machines, only have the VirtualBox NDIS6 Bridged Network Driver bound to them. Binding TCP/IP to the physical adapter appropriate for the guest allows it to be selected for bridge networking. The guest can be launched and functions properly. This same behaviour is present with all the other VMs and the corresponding physical adapters they are configured with.

Virtual adapters (Host only, Internal) appear in the guest's configuration without issue. As I only use bridged physical network adapters in my VMs, I didn't observe the behaviour in NAT configured adapters.

I've attached 2 guest log files - one with TCP/IP enabled, the other, disabled.

Thanks

[michaln]

Is there any planned release and timeline available for issuing bug fix?

No. Might be good to know why this problem is more important than all the rest.

[shimh]

Virtual Box 5.0.6-103037
Host = Windows 7 x64, 32GB RAM
Guest = Linux (Mint), 2GB RAM, (and others)

All networking is IPv4.

After installing the latest update over top of the current working version (5.0.2-102096), launching the guest fails as Virtual Box can't find the physical network adapter used in the guest's bridged network
configuration. I've looked at numerous posts detailing similar behaviour and solutions regarding bridged networking in VB 5.x but I did not see any mention of the following observation.

The only adapters available for bridged networking in the guest's configuration are those with TCP/IP bound to the host's physical adapters. My host has 6 physical adapters installed and nominally, only one has
TCP/IP bound to it. The others, used for Virtual Box virtual machines, only have the VirtualBox NDIS6 Bridged Network Driver bound to them. Binding TCP/IP to the physical adapter appropriate for the guest allows it to be selected for bridge networking. The guest can be launched and functions properly. This same behaviour is present with all the other VMs and the corresponding physical adapters they are configured with.

Virtual adapters (Host only, Internal) appear in the guest's configuration without issue. As I only use bridged physical network adapters in my VMs, I didn't observe the behaviour in NAT configured adapters.

I've attached 2 guest log files - one with TCP/IP enabled, the other, disabled.

Thanks

Just wanted to add that this bug has been reported as Ticket #14578.

[jbhur]

Just wanted to add that this bug has been reported as Ticket #14578.

Right you are. I've since found it in the bug tracker. I didn't think to look there first. Thanks!
Think I should I add a "me too" comment to the bug entry, to help keep reported instances in one place?
Not sure of the proper etiquette here.

[michaln]

Right you are. I've since found it in the bug tracker. I didn't think to look there first. Thanks!
Think I should I add a "me too" comment to the bug entry, to help keep reported instances in one place?
Not sure of the proper etiquette here.

If you add a comment to the ticket, you'll be notified when there's some update. Although I think you'll also be notified when there are other "me too" entries. So it's up to you.