[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#708416: marked as done (Apache2 on 'older' kernels does not work in Debian stable)

Your message dated Wed, 15 May 2013 21:37:10 +0200
with message-id <5193E3E6.8040303@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#708416: Apache2 on 'older' kernels does not work in Debian stable
has caused the Debian Bug report #708416,
regarding Apache2 on 'older' kernels does not work in Debian stable
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
708416: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=708416
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: apache2
Severity: grave

When upgrading to Debian stable (the one that is stable today, released
recently ;) and when one still has an older kernel (2.6.26-2-686,
linux-image-2.6.26-2-686 2.6.26-26lenny2) Apache fails to start
mysteriously with:

[Wed May 15 16:15:03 2013] [crit] (22)Invalid argument: alloc_listener:
failed to get a socket for (null)
Syntax error on line 9 of /etc/apache2/ports.conf:

Line 9 is simply the very good and old "Listen 80".

Please make Apache depend on a 'new' kernel. Apparently that is 2.6.30+
or better 3.2+ that provides a certain syscall that is being used.

By depending on it, one does not get to upgrade and then in being forced
to suddenly have to reboot a box which is just running fine:

Linux andromeda 2.6.26-2-686 #1 SMP Thu Sep 16 19:35:51 UTC 2010 i686
GNU/Linux

$ uptime
 16:20:46 up 912 days,  3:38,  2 users,  load average: 3.83, 2.59, 1.33

Oh yes, as you can see, it has load and is quite heavily used too even
though at the moment Apache is down, but all redirected with courtesy of
nginx. Will reboot tomorrow into a fresh 3.2 when people are on site to
peek at it.

For the record, this was the only issue that I had when upgrading that
box from the older stable to the current one, thus great works folks!

$ dpkg --list|grep apache
ii  apache2                              2.2.22-13
i386         Apache HTTP Server metapackage
ii  apache2-mpm-prefork                  2.2.22-13
i386         Apache HTTP Server - traditional non-threaded model
ii  apache2-utils                        2.2.22-13
i386         utility programs for webservers
ii  apache2.2-bin                        2.2.22-13
i386         Apache HTTP Server common binary files
ii  apache2.2-common                     2.2.22-13
i386         Apache HTTP Server common files

$ dpkg --list|grep linux-image
ii  linux-image-2.6.26-2-686             2.6.26-26lenny2
i386         Linux 2.6.26 image on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/P4
ii  linux-image-3.2.0-4-686-pae          3.2.41-2
i386         Linux 3.2 for modern PCs
ii  linux-image-686                      3.2+46
i386         Linux for modern PCs (dummy package)
ii  linux-image-686-pae                  3.2+46
i386         Linux for modern PCs (meta-package)

Yes, 3.2 is ready to be rebooted into, but rebooting is for wussies and
unstable things ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

On 15.05.2013 18:23, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Package: apache2
> Severity: grave

sorry. No.

> When upgrading to Debian stable (the one that is stable today, released
> recently ;) and when one still has an older kernel (2.6.26-2-686,
> linux-image-2.6.26-2-686 2.6.26-26lenny2) Apache fails to start
> mysteriously with:
...
> Please make Apache depend on a 'new' kernel. Apparently that is 2.6.30+
> or better 3.2+ that provides a certain syscall that is being used.

this is bad luck, but expected. We do not support upgrades skipping a
version in any way. If you are running a kernel from Lenny, you cannot
(and should not) expect it is being able to run a much newer user land.

You noticed this problem for Apache, but in reality there are plenty of
packages making use of syscalls introduced in later kernel versions.
Some random examples include, but are not limited to lvm, udev, libc6
and by chance many, many more.

> Linux andromeda 2.6.26-2-686 #1 SMP Thu Sep 16 19:35:51 UTC 2010 i686
> GNU/Linux
> 
> $ uptime
>  16:20:46 up 912 days,  3:38,  2 users,  load average: 3.83, 2.59, 1.33

I am not sure this is something to be proud of, or even more so telling
to the public that you are running a kernel which saw no security
upgrades for 3 years (and yes, there are issues).


There is also consensus in Debian not do depend on any particular kernel
version. There is no reliable way to please everyone running Debian in
every setup. Just to note some random examples, where dependencies
against a kernel package would break:

- chroots
- virtual machine environments
- self-built kernels

And finally, as you noted yourself: Having a kernel INSTALLED and having
that kernel BOOTED is a different kind of story.


If you still believe this is something which should be addressed, try to
find project-wide consensus. For example, I could imagine that libc6
maintainers provide a runtime check running in their maintainer scripts
testing the kernel for required interfaces and warning the user if the
running kernel can not satisfy the requirements of the user land.


-- 
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: