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

Re: Bug#845690: gcc-6: gcc creates unbootable kernel on x86-64



On 27.11.2016 16:51, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2016-11-27 13:39 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> 
>> Control: tags -1 + help moreinfo
>> Control: severity -1 important
>>
>> On 27.11.2016 08:38, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>> Control: reassign -1 binutils 2.27.51.20161124-1
>>> Control: retitle -1 binutils: creates unbootable kernel on x86-64
>>> Control: severity -1 grave
>>>
>>> On 2016-11-26 15:13 +0100, Damien Wyart wrote:
>>>
>>>> After running further tests today, I think this is in fact *not*
>>>> related to gcc but to the kernel itself.
>>>>
>>>> I tested all 6.2.1-X versions as well as gcc-5 (5.4.1-3) and all the
>>>> kernels fail to boot (balck screen just after grub and nothing in the
>>>> logs).
>>>
>>> Same here, downgrading binutils to 2.27.51.20161118-2 helped.  I'm
>>> reassigning the bug and bumping the severity, since several people have
>>> observed the problem.
>>
>> The original report talks about a 4.4 problem on , which afaik is superseded in
>> unstable by newever versions released after the GCC 6 release.  This is now made
>> a binutils RC issue for building a kernel which is not in the archive anymore.
>> Please could you validate that the issue exists with the linux package in
>> unstable as well?
> 
> I have noticed the problem with vanilla Linux 4.8.11 from kernel.org, so
> I suspect the Debian kernel is affected as well.  There is no console
> output at all, the system freezes right when uncompressing the kernel.
> 
> It should be noted that I haven't noticed the problem on my desktop
> (which has a 32-bit userland but a 64-bit kernel) where I have
> CONFIG_KERNEL_GZIP=y, but on my laptop which uses the default
> CONFIG_KERNEL_XZ=y it is reproducible.

if it's really binutils, I prepared a package reverting the fix for PR ld/20815.
Would be nice if somebody could check that out:
https://people.debian.org/~doko/tmp/binutils_2.27.51.20161124-1.1_amd64.deb


Reply to: