Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #87678 > unrolled thread

Bug#1106070: Raising the severity?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#1106070: Raising the severity? Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2025-05-25 16:50 +0200
    Bug#1106070: Raising the severity? Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2025-05-25 17:10 +0200
      Bug#1106070: Raising the severity? Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> - 2025-05-25 20:40 +0200

#87678 — Bug#1106070: Raising the severity?

Hi Roland,

Thanks for your feedback.

On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 11:37:17AM +0200, Roland Clobus wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I saw in the PTS that an unblock was granted. Please block linux-image
> 6.12.29 again and wait for the pending upload instead.
> 
> Should the priority be raised to the next level above 'Important'?
> 
> Pro/Con:
> + With 6.12.29 additional security fixes get in
> - With 6.12.29 all live images will cease to boot to live mode

I see your point and having though the ITS mitigations in my opinion
is more important. But stepping a bit back I fully understand as well
your point of view.

Cyril and Debian boot people, would you actually want to not get
6.12.29-1 into trixie? 

FWIW, the next upload *will* include a fix for the loop issue. I have
already imported 6.12.30 for the packaging and marked the loop fix as
to be backported to 6.12.

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#87681

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

To be honest, I almost asked what the plans were for 6.12.29-1 regarding
this issue, and whether Severity: important was appropriate. But I got
busy with other things and let this fly…

Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2025-05-25):
> I see your point and having though the ITS mitigations in my opinion
> is more important. But stepping a bit back I fully understand as well
> your point of view.
> 
> Cyril and Debian boot people, would you actually want to not get
> 6.12.29-1 into trixie? 

Regarding the installer itself, I'm fine with either having .29 then .30
or just waiting for .30. I definitely can see how live people might want
to avoid a known broken kernel's reaching testing though.

> FWIW, the next upload *will* include a fix for the loop issue. I have
> already imported 6.12.30 for the packaging and marked the loop fix as
> to be backported to 6.12.

Great news!


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87694

Control: severity -1 serious

Hi Roland, hi Cyril,

On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 05:44:42PM +0200, Roland Clobus wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 25/05/2025 17:00, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > To be honest, I almost asked what the plans were for 6.12.29-1 regarding
> > this issue, and whether Severity: important was appropriate. But I got
> > busy with other things and let this fly…
> > 
> > Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2025-05-25):
> > > I see your point and having though the ITS mitigations in my opinion
> > > is more important. But stepping a bit back I fully understand as well
> > > your point of view.
> > > 
> > > Cyril and Debian boot people, would you actually want to not get
> > > 6.12.29-1 into trixie?
> > 
> > Regarding the installer itself, I'm fine with either having .29 then .30
> > or just waiting for .30. I definitely can see how live people might want
> > to avoid a known broken kernel's reaching testing though.
> > 
> > > FWIW, the next upload *will* include a fix for the loop issue. I have
> > > already imported 6.12.30 for the packaging and marked the loop fix as
> > > to be backported to 6.12.
> 
> If 6.12.30 is nearly ready to be uploaded, I would propose to skip 6.12.29
> and have 6.12.30 in (perhaps even faster than with a 10 day delay)
> 
> If we were to have 6.12.29, the live images based on trixie will be
> untestable and we would fly blind regarding trixie until 6.12.30 lands
> there. We are currently unable to test the live images based on sid, which
> is already a bit uncomfortable to me, I have even considered writing a hack
> to use the trixie kernel instead.
> 
> So 6.12.27 in trixie and 6.12.30 in sid seems the better option to me.

While I think the ITS mitigations would be important, I do not want to
have your life harder working on the life images. Let's raise the
severity of this bug to RC and it will be fixed with the next upload
to unstable.

Regards,
Salvatore

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel

csiph-web