Bug#987266: preinst check for kernel release > 255 may no longer be needed
On 2022-03-04 09:19, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 09:57:02 +0200 Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> 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?
>
> Another stretch user brought this up [1]. I suppose there are and as time
> passes (with current stable kernel versions getting higher) there will be
> more users affected by this in buster and bullseye. Have you further
> considered including this fix in a proposed-update?
Yep I have submitted #1005906 for bullseye, and I have committed the fix
to the buster branch, but not yet submitted the bug.
Stretch is going to be more complicated as we still support 2.6.32
kernels, which means the third version level actually still makes sense.
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: