Bug#987266: preinst check for kernel release > 255 may no longer be needed
Hi,
On 2021-09-26 09:57, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi Aurelien,
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 06:36:33PM +0200, Andras Korn wrote:
> > Package: libc6
> > Version: 2.31-11
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > due to
> > https://salsa.debian.org/glibc-team/glibc/-/commit/6ddfa57577af0d96df9ddd7be401f5ce9a9bcc0f
> > (a commit from 2004) the preinst script for glibc checks whether the
> > "z" in the "x.y.z" of the kernel version is less than 255. If yes,
> > the package refuses to install.
> >
> > I hit this problem on a box with a custom 4.9.266 kernel.
> >
> > Based on this lkml thread:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7pR0YCctzN9phpuEChlL7_SS6auHOM80bZBcGBTZPuMkc6XjKw7HUXf9vZUPi-IaV2gTtsRVXgywQbja8xpzjGRDGWJsVYSGQN5sNuX1yaQ=@protonmail.com/T/,
> > the check is no longer needed because the kernel caps the version
> > code it reports to 255, even if uname prints a higher number.
> >
> > Of course, you could conceivably still hit the problem with earlier
> > kernels, so I suppose the logic of the check should be modified, not
> > removed entirely, to be technically correct.
> >
> > If forced at gunpoint to make a guess, I would guess, though, that
> > removing the check would have very little actual impact; it also
> > doesn't protect the user from installing a kernel with an
> > unsupported version number after having installed glibc.
>
> Prompted by
> https://lore.kernel.org/stable/YVAhOlTsb0NK0BVi@kroah.com/T/#t and
> given this was addressed with
> https://salsa.debian.org/glibc-team/glibc/-/commit/b3c76cf1cd0c8b6e4844c6362a45143c136a2900
> is this something we should do consider as well for the older releases
> where it is not acutally needed for people compiling their own custom
> kernels?
The bug has been reported with severity normal, and it seemed it was
limited to a rather small range of users. Now if you thing it is a more
widespread issue, feel free to raise the severity so that we can
consider it from buster and bullseye. The fix has been in testing/sid
for a few weeks, so this should be acceptable for older releases.
At least for bullseye, we have an update scheduled, currently being
under review by the release team (bug #992693). But we won't be able to
fix Raspbian ;-).
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: