On donderdag 10 november 2022 11:54:59 CET Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > Perhaps I didn't understand what you meant... Does the linux image
> > 6.0.0.3 (6.0.7.2) include the patch correcting my issue ? And in this
> > case, is it sufficient to download the linux image and the linux headers
> > in order to test the result ?
>
> No. In order to test the patch, you do need to build a kernel.
Oh boy, I probably should've stayed out of it completely ...
In another response to this bug, Salvatore did provide an alternative means
and that is using the kernel package he build for you.
See this part:
On woensdag 9 november 2022 17:42:44 CET Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > Additionnally, I am not sure to know how to proceed in order to apply the
> > patch you sent. Could you give me some hint ?
>
> There is our documentation at
> https://kernel-team.pages.debian.net/kernel-handbook/ch-common-tasks.html#s4
> .2.2 . But would you be willing to test (but be aware, unsigned!) test
> packages fetched by https://people.debian.org ?
>
> https://people.debian.org/~carnil/tmp/linux/6.0.7-2/
>
> I have put a sha256sum file with signature on it with my gpg key to
> have an additional verification on those.
>
> https://db.debian.org/fetchkey.cgi?fingerprint=04A4407CB9142C23030C17AE789D6
> F057FD863FE
So you have 2 options:
- build it yourself from source (with instructions from 4.2.2)
- Use the packages Salvatore build for you at the above location
Keep in mind that you normally shouldn't install programs ('deb' on Debian or
'exe' if on Windows) from "strangers on the internet". Salvatore did provide a
(gpg) signed file to provide some mitigation against the risks.
But you would still need to trust Salvatore.
If you build it yourself, then you don't download programs from "strangers on
the internet". But that obviously is more work. Which can be daunting if you
hadn't done that before.
HTH
(And now I'm really staying out of it ;-))Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.