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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #264610 > unrolled thread

From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64?

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

Contents

  From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to  linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64? Stella Ashburne <rewefie@gmx.com> - 2023-12-11 14:20 +0100
    Re: From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to  linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-11 14:30 +0100
    Re: From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to  linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64? Kevin Price <kp@osnanet.de> - 2023-12-11 14:30 +0100
      Re: From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to  linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64? "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2023-12-11 16:30 +0100
        Re: From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to  linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64? Stella Ashburne <rewefie@gmx.com> - 2023-12-11 19:40 +0100
          Re: From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to  linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-11 19:50 +0100
            Re: From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to  linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64? Stella Ashburne <rewefie@gmx.com> - 2023-12-12 14:50 +0100
          Re: From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to  linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64? Kevin Price <kp@osnanet.de> - 2023-12-12 04:40 +0100
            Re: From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to  linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64? Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> - 2023-12-12 05:20 +0100
              Re: From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to  linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64? Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2023-12-12 05:50 +0100
                Re: Issues found in linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64 6.1.66-1; was: From  which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to  linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64? Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2023-12-12 11:00 +0100

#264610 — From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64?

Hi

As of now, I'm quite hesistant to upgrade my installed Debian Bookworm to linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64 as there are two users who reported they have problems with it (cf. https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00570.html and https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00607.html)

However......

Suppose I wish to upgrade to linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64.

Should I do it after booting my device into

(1) linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64 (the problematic kernel)

or

(2) linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64 (which precedes the buggy one)

or

(3) doesn't matter which kernel to upgrade from

I welcome your expert opinions and the reasons for your choice.

Best regards.

Stella

P.S.: I'm sorry to have to ask the above question because this is the first time I have ever encountered the problem of having to upgrade a defective kernel within the space of a day, literally.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#264612

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 02:16:39PM +0100, Stella Ashburne wrote:
> (3) doesn't matter which kernel to upgrade from

That.

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

#264613

Am 11.12.23 um 14:16 schrieb Stella Ashburne:
> Suppose I wish to upgrade to linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64.

If that were the case, or maybe better to a newer one.

> Should I do it after booting my device into
> (1) linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64 (the problematic kernel)

NO. Don't ever boot that as it might then toast your ext4.

> (2) linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64 (which precedes the buggy one)

Yes.

> (3) doesn't matter which kernel to upgrade from

Yes, it largely doesn't matter, apart from the exception above.

HTH
-- 
Kevin Price

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

#264640

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 02:25:23PM +0100, Kevin Price wrote:
> Am 11.12.23 um 14:16 schrieb Stella Ashburne:
> > Suppose I wish to upgrade to linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64.
> 
> If that were the case, or maybe better to a newer one.
> 
> > Should I do it after booting my device into
> > (1) linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64 (the problematic kernel)
> 
> NO. Don't ever boot that as it might then toast your ext4.
> 
> > (2) linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64 (which precedes the buggy one)
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > (3) doesn't matter which kernel to upgrade from
> 
> Yes, it largely doesn't matter, apart from the exception above.
> 
> HTH
> -- 
> Kevin Price
>

If, this afternoon (UK timezone), you do a full upgrade - you'll get
6.1.0-15 and that's fine.

If you're not currently booted into the erroneous 6.1.0-14 - don't boot into
it and you can safely apt-get remove it (or equivalent).

If you also install linux-image-amd64 if you removed it - you should end
up with 6.1.0-15 and 6.1.0-13 available to you.

This isn't something that happens often - ideally not more than once a 
decade - so we haven't had a lot of practice at this. On average, it's
OK to just upgrade to the next sequentially numbered kernel and reboot.
This once, it isn't.

All the very best, as ever,

Andy Cater
[amacater@debian.org] 

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

#264651

Hi Andy

> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 at 11:25 PM
> From: "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64?
>
>
> If you're not currently booted into the erroneous 6.1.0-14 - don't boot into
> it and you can safely apt-get remove it (or equivalent).
>
Your above statement implies strongly that one boots up their device using linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64

> If you also install linux-image-amd64 if you removed it - you should end
> up with 6.1.0-15 and 6.1.0-13 available to you.
>
Please see Greg's reply to my other post (URL: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00640.html).

For your convenience, I quote a section of his reply (see below):

"Yes, because linux-image-amd64 *right now* depends on linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64.  Removing linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64 will therefore remove linux-image-amd64."

Removing the buggy linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64 will also remove the metapackage linux-image-amd64.

> This isn't something that happens often - ideally not more than once a
> decade - so we haven't had a lot of practice at this.

Thank goodness it only happens once in a blue moon.

Someone might wish to add to Debian's wiki on how to deal with the situation of having a buggy kernel made available via the official repos, a few hours later a warning against upgrading to it and the release team failing to pull it out of the official repos.

Best wishes.

Stella

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

#264652

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 07:38:02PM +0100, Stella Ashburne wrote:
> Please see Greg's reply to my other post (URL: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00640.html).
> 
> For your convenience, I quote a section of his reply (see below):
> 
> "Yes, because linux-image-amd64 *right now* depends on linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64.  Removing linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64 will therefore remove linux-image-amd64."
> 
> Removing the buggy linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64 will also remove the metapackage linux-image-amd64.

This is incorrect.  I'm not even sure how you came up with this idea.

If you have linux-image-amd64 version 6.1.66-1, it depends on
linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64 and NOT on linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64.

In this situation, nothing depends on linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64 so
you may remove it without worry.  It's no different from removing any
other old kernel images.  So long as they're not the current one, they
can be removed freely.

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

#264665

Hi Greg

> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 2:43 AM
> From: "Greg Wooledge" <greg@wooledge.org>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64?
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 07:38:02PM +0100, Stella Ashburne wrote:
> > Please see Greg's reply to my other post (URL: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00640.html).
> >
> > For your convenience, I quote a section of his reply (see below):
> >
> > "Yes, because linux-image-amd64 *right now* depends on linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64.  Removing linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64 will therefore remove linux-image-amd64."
> >
> > Removing the buggy linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64 will also remove the metapackage linux-image-amd64.
>
> This is incorrect.  I'm not even sure how you came up with this idea.
>
Sorry, Greg for having misunderstood your explanation but it's good that you clarified my misconception in this reply of yours.

> It's no different from removing any
> other old kernel images.  So long as they're not the current one, they
> can be removed freely.
>
The above two statements have clarified my misunderstanding.

Thank you.

Best wishes.

Stella

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

#264658

Hey Stella, hey all:

Am 11.12.23 um 19:38 schrieb Stella Ashburne:
> Thank goodness it only happens once in a blue moon.

May I please clarify some basic (mis-)conceptions?

There's "linux-image-amd64". This is a metapackage that contains nothing
but a constructed dependency upon the latest kernel package, such as now
"linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64". If any debian package A has a dependency
upon B, then installing A will make apt install B as well. If you then
try to uninstall B, either dpkg will refuse, or apt will offer to
uninstall A beforehand. That's the single one purpose metapackages exist
for: to make sure you have another package installed.[1]

Why does debian provide the metapackage "linux-image-amd64"? That's
because every now and then your real kernel package, such as
"linux-image-6.1.0-12-amd64" should be updated to
"linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64", or so on. Those are not two versions of
the same linux package, but rather they're two seperate packages that
may be installed simultaneously, which apt itself will not "update" from
one to the other. The best way for debian to ensure everyone has current
kernel versions, is to provide a metapackage with a name that doesn't
change, such as "linux-image-amd64". That metapackage, when updated, apt
will recognize as depending upon (requiring) a previously not installed
package, such as "linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64"

Metapackage "linux-image-amd64" version...
6.1.52-1 depends on linux-image-6.1.0-12-amd64
6.1.55-1 depends on linux-image-6.1.0-13-amd64
6.1.64-1 depends on linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64 (nasty!)
6.1.66-1 depends on linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64

Also there are similar "dependencies" in place and in sync with the
kernel one, such as another metapackage "linux-headers-amd64".

Also there might be other mechnisms (autoremove) in place for the
purpose of uninstalling your outdated kernels for disk space, but they
spare the current one as well as its one predecessor as your backup boot
option, just in case any update might go bad. (blue moon) Everything
will be fine. (fingers crossed)

If you happened to update bookworm last weekend, you might have caught
"linux-image-amd64" in version 6.1.64-1. That would have intentionally
pulled and installed the accidentally very dangerous
"linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64". Let's call it "nasty". Please make very
sure to never boot that. It is known to possibly fry your ext4,
potentially destroying all your data. That's why debian interrupted the
12.3 point-release process very quickly. Unprecedented? I'm certain
there're plenty blog posts and maybe official statements about that to
come, about this one-in-a-IDK-glitch. (Andy had suggested a decade, that
seems about correct.) Could anyone have installed, or even booted nasty
6.1.0-14 in the meantime? Yes. I have, for instance. By chance it didn't
hurt me this time, but I'm not betting again.

Re your situation: To make sure, I highly recommend uninstalling nasty
"linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64", provided that you have another functioning
kernel version. But if your metapackage "linux-image-amd64" is still
version 6.1.64-1, that would get uninstalled as well. Result: You'd no
longer receive automatic kernel updates, very bad. So maybe better first
update the entire debian, including all the metapackages, and as of now
you'll get linux-image-amd64 in version 6.1.66-1. That no longer
"depends" upon nasty linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64, but rathermore -15.

(Wait, please read on first!)

That's what might happen once in a blue moon at the very most, and hurt
noone, hopefully. And then debian rectified it in the middle of the
point-release process, by hastily cancelling release 12.3 and replacing
it with 12.4. New kernel version is now 6.1.0-15, no more ext4 frying.
What could possibly go wrong by hastily releasing a debian kernel?

()brace for impact()

6.1.0-15 brought not only the ext4-bugfix, but along with it introduced
a terrible new bug: Most computers work fine with -15, except for some
of those that have wifi, depending upon the driver. There was a certain
change in Linux's cfg80211 kernel module, which controls wifi. This very
change was adopted in debian's hastily released 6.1.0-15. Whichever
computer is affected, then not only loses wifi, but becomes virtually
unusable, unable to perform simple tasks, such as even to properly shut
down. So -15 is useless for a number of users. Expect blogposts about
that as well.

An unusable kernel (-15) once in a blue moon is no big deal, since you
can always boot back into... the... previous... one... Oh, wait. Can you
see where this is getting to? Oh no, not -14? So if you're fortunate
enough for -15 to be working for you, lucky you, maybe just keep -13 as
a backup. I happen to be among a few users who need to run -13 and keep
-12 as backup, just to be careful. Always have one extra, really. This
weekend that little extra carefulness paid for me. Another time, it will
for you.

Given all the above, in conjunction with autoremove, this might have
made some people's computers stranded with only -14 and -15 to boot
from. Out of which one might toast all their data, and the other one
might go nuts if their computer has wifi, and by chance they're using a
driver that cfg80211 can't cope with. Those users would be then out of luck.

What a terrible mess. /o\

I strongly believe in debian's honesty, because debian is based upon its
social contract.[2] Have you read and understood it? (It's a very
pleasant read.) The debian project is designed to be free and open, and
to be incapable of covering up anything that might have gone wrong. Much
better than that: Debian will publish just that in most detail. Having
screwed up twice in a row, debian will confess, big time. Had I
mentioned blog posts? (We might need a word with the moon regarding its
blue occurrence. Maybe don't do that twice in a weekend, please?) Debian
is empowering users. That includes that debian will never accept
liability for making anyone's computer unusable. If that ever happens,
then it's the user who's done it. Debian focuses on providing a free
operating system to anyone, enabling them to make best use of their
computers. And debian goes great lengths to help users prevent screwing up.

In order to get things straight (get kernels working), debian's
Salvatore Bonaccorso has been wonderful in pinpointing the -15's bug to
the cfg80211 module, and developing a remedy, which will hopefully be
introduced with future 6.1.0-16 maybe, soon to come. Not again hastily:
It's ready when it's ready. That's how debian's been excellent for 30 years.

So please feel empowered, use debian as much as you like, and if you
feel gratitude or appreciation, please feel free to express any of that.
Maybe towards the release or kernel teams, who've been working unpaid
nightshifts for 12.3, which suddenly became 12.4, and who still are, for
the folks who need to solve that -15 wifi bug. What are they doing it
for? For the good, expecting nothing in return. Just enjoy!

(Since you'd explicitly asked for advice, I hope there was not too much
mansplaining.)

[1] (installed. or in other cases, not installed, or in a specific
version, etc.)

[2] https://www.debian.org/social_contract
-- 
Kevin Price

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

#264659

Kevin Price <kp@osnanet.de> writes:

> 6.1.0-15 brought not only the ext4-bugfix, but along with it introduced
> a terrible new bug: Most computers work fine with -15, except for some
> of those that have wifi, depending upon the driver. There was a certain
> change in Linux's cfg80211 kernel module, which controls wifi. This very
> change was adopted in debian's hastily released 6.1.0-15. Whichever
> computer is affected, then not only loses wifi, but becomes virtually
> unusable, unable to perform simple tasks, such as even to properly shut
> down. So -15 is useless for a number of users. Expect blogposts about
> that as well.

Do we know yet which wifi drivers are "troublesome"? I haven't seen
anything concrete yet anywhere.

Cheers,
Tom

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

#264660

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 04:15:33 +0000
Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> wrote:

> Do we know yet which wifi drivers are "troublesome"? I haven't seen
> anything concrete yet anywhere.

You can read the gory details at Mr. Price's bug report.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057967

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

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

#264662 — Re: Issues found in linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64 6.1.66-1; was: From which kernel should I upgrade my installed Debian to linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64?

On 11 Dec 2023 21:45 -0700, from charlescurley@charlescurley.com (Charles Curley):
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057967

And from the looks of that bug report thread, message #72 onwards,
there is now a candidate fix.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057967#72

I'll echo the sentiment of Kevin Price in #77: let's hope that a
corresponding build can be pushed to Stable soon, indeed.

-- 
Michael Kjörling                     🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web