Re: Debian 12.5.0 amd64 and OpenZFS bug #15526

[David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com>]

On 2/26/24 20:52, Gareth Evans wrote:
> Replied to OP by mistake, reposting to list.
>
> On Sun 25/02/2024 at 05:34, David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> wrote:
> > debian-user:
> >
> > Is Debian 12.5.0 amd64 affected by OpenZFS bug #15526?
> >
> > https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/iso-cd/debian-12.5.0-amd64-netinst.iso
> >
> > https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/zfs-dkms
> >
> > https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/15526
>
> Hi David,
>
> Given the complexity of the issues, I'm not sure if this truly answers your question, but
>
> https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/15933
>
> seems to suggest that or a similar issue is still ongoing with Open ZFS 2.2.3, which is later than the version currently available from bookworm or bookworm-backports.
>
> It seems bookworm-backports might eventually provide the solution, if at all, per the Debian wiki on ZFS:
>
> "it is recommended by Debian ZFS on Linux Team to install ZFS related packages from Backports archive. Upstream stable patches will be tracked and compatibility is always maintained."
> https://wiki.debian.org/ZFS
>
> Currently:
>
> $ apt policy zfs-dkms
> zfs-dkms:
>    Installed: 2.2.2-4~bpo12+1
>    Candidate: 2.2.2-4~bpo12+1
>    Version table:
>   *** 2.2.2-4~bpo12+1 100
>          100 https://deb.debian.org/debian bookworm-backports/contrib amd64 Packages
>          100 https://deb.debian.org/debian bookworm-backports/contrib i386 Packages
>          100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>       2.1.11-1 500
>          500 https://deb.debian.org/debian bookworm/contrib amd64 Packages
>          500 https://deb.debian.org/debian bookworm/contrib i386 Packages
>
> Hope that helps.
> Gareth


That you for citing OpenZFS bug #15933.


These appear to be the ZFS packages for the available Debian releases:

https://packages.debian.org/buster/zfs-dkms

buster			zfs-dkms (0.7.12-2+deb10u2)
buster-backports	zfs-dkms (2.0.3-9~bpo10+1)
bullseye		zfs-dkms (2.0.3-9+deb11u1)
bullseye-backports	zfs-dkms (2.1.11-1~bpo11+1)
bookworm		zfs-dkms (2.1.11-1)
bookworm-backports	zfs-dkms (2.2.2-4~bpo12+1)
trixie			zfs-dkms (2.2.2-4)


The question is, how far back to go?  Is OpenZFS 2.1.x buggy?  OpenZFS 
2.0.x?  What is 0.7.12 -- OpenZFS, ZFS-on-Linux, or something else -- 
and is it buggy?


David