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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #264482 > unrolled thread

IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release

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

Contents

  IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2023-12-09 19:30 +0100
    Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2023-12-09 19:50 +0100
    Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Markus Schönhaber <debian-user@list-post.mks-mail.de> - 2023-12-09 20:00 +0100
    Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Alexis Grigoriou <alexis@nanoid.net> - 2023-12-09 20:10 +0100
      Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2023-12-09 20:20 +0100
        Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-09 20:30 +0100
          Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2023-12-09 21:00 +0100
          Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2023-12-09 21:00 +0100
        Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2023-12-09 22:20 +0100
        Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release "Niall O'Reilly" <niall+lists@no8.be> - 2023-12-10 17:00 +0100
        Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2023-12-10 18:00 +0100
          Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2023-12-10 18:00 +0100
            Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2023-12-10 18:10 +0100
              Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2023-12-10 18:30 +0100
                Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-10 18:30 +0100
                Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2023-12-10 18:40 +0100
              Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-10 18:30 +0100
                Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2023-12-10 19:00 +0100
                  Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2023-12-10 19:50 +0100
                    Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2023-12-10 20:40 +0100
                      Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-10 20:50 +0100
            Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2023-12-10 19:30 +0100
    6.1.0-15/6.1.66-1 broken too? Kevin Price <kp@osnanet.de> - 2023-12-10 20:20 +0100
      Re: 6.1.0-15/6.1.66-1 broken too? "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2023-12-10 20:30 +0100
        Re: 6.1.0-15/6.1.66-1 broken too? Kevin Price <kp@osnanet.de> - 2023-12-11 00:00 +0100
          Re: 6.1.0-15/6.1.66-1 broken too? Kevin Price <kp@osnanet.de> - 2023-12-11 12:20 +0100
    Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2023-12-10 22:30 +0100
      Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2023-12-10 22:50 +0100
    Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> - 2023-12-11 17:40 +0100
      Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Махно <mindaugasceliesius@gmail.com> - 2023-12-11 17:50 +0100
      Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Махно <mindaugasceliesius@gmail.com> - 2023-12-11 17:50 +0100
      Re: IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2023-12-11 17:50 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#264482 — IMPORTANT: do NOT upgrade to new stable point release

https://fulda.social/@Ganneff/111551628003050712

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057843

The new kernel release is reported to contain an ext4 data
corruption bug. It's prudent not to upgrade, or if you have
started to upgrade, not to reboot, until a new kernel release
is prepared.


-dsr-

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#264483

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

Thanks for the tip.  I updated this morning well before any
announcements and having seen this I rebooted into the 6.1.0-12 (6.1.52)
package.  Good thing old kernels are kept around.

- Nate

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819

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

#264484

09.12.23, 19:09 +0100, Dan Ritter:

> https://fulda.social/@Ganneff/111551628003050712
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057843
> 
> The new kernel release is reported to contain an ext4 data
> corruption bug. It's prudent not to upgrade, or if you have
> started to upgrade, not to reboot, until a new kernel release
> is prepared.

Thank you very much for the hint, Dan!

-- 
Regards
  mks

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

#264485

On Sat, 2023-12-09 at 13:09 -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> 
> 
> The new kernel release is reported to contain an ext4 data
> corruption bug. It's prudent not to upgrade, or if you have
> started to upgrade, not to reboot, until a new kernel release
> is prepared.
> 

I just upgraded to Bookworm this morning. I did reboot a couple of
times but there seems to be no problem (yet). Is there anything I
should look for or do other than rebooting?

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

#264488

On 9 Dec 2023 20:54 +0200, from alexis@nanoid.net (Alexis Grigoriou):
> I just upgraded to Bookworm this morning. I did reboot a couple of
> times but there seems to be no problem (yet). Is there anything I
> should look for or do other than rebooting?

If you upgraded this morning, then I would expect that you are okay
for now.

Per #5 in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057843
the bug is present in kernel Debian package version 6.1.64-1. If you
are on 6.1.55-1 (current Bookworm stable per last night) you _likely_
aren't affected. If you are on 6.1.55-1 (or earlier), just hold off on
upgrades for now; and if you need to upgrade something else, take
great care for now to ensure that no Linux kernel packages get
upgraded to any version < 6.1.66, and preferably not < 6.1.66-1.

For versions, check:

* uname -v
* dpkg -l linux-image-\*

In that bug report thread, #21 lists 6.1.66 as fixed upstream, and #28
indicates that 6.1.66-1 includes the fix from upstream, and that it is
being published.

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

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

#264489

On Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 07:18:20PM +0000, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> If you upgraded this morning, then I would expect that you are okay
> for now.

That doesn't appear to be true.

> Per #5 in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057843
> the bug is present in kernel Debian package version 6.1.64-1. If you
> are on 6.1.55-1 (current Bookworm stable per last night) you _likely_
> aren't affected.

This is the kernel I got this morning:

ii  linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64 6.1.64-1     amd64        Linux 6.1 for 64-bit PCs (signed)

This is the current result of looking for a newer one:

0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.

Based on the warnings given here, I rebooted to the prior kernel:

unicorn:~$ uname -a
Linux unicorn 6.1.0-13-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Debian 6.1.55-1 (2023-09-29) x86_64 GNU/Linux

I guess I'll wait and see what happens next.

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

#264490

Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> writes:

> On Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 07:18:20PM +0000, Michael Kjörling wrote:
>> If you upgraded this morning, then I would expect that you are okay
>> for now.
>
> That doesn't appear to be true.
>
>> Per #5 in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057843
>> the bug is present in kernel Debian package version 6.1.64-1. If you
>> are on 6.1.55-1 (current Bookworm stable per last night) you _likely_
>> aren't affected.
>
> This is the kernel I got this morning:
>
> ii linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64 6.1.64-1 amd64 Linux 6.1 for 64-bit PCs
> (signed)
>
> This is the current result of looking for a newer one:
>
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
>
> Based on the warnings given here, I rebooted to the prior kernel:
>
> unicorn:~$ uname -a Linux unicorn 6.1.0-13-amd64 #1 SMP
> PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Debian 6.1.55-1 (2023-09-29) x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
> I guess I'll wait and see what happens next.

I upgraded some time today to a December kernel. I have now gone back to
September 29 kernel. But is there a way to tell what if anything got
corrupted? I am using a 32 bit system and ext4.

I booted this:

 6.1.0-13-686-pae #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Debian 6.1.55-1 (2023-09-29)
 i686 GNU/Linux

then:

aptitude remove linux-image-6.1.0-14-686-pae

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

#264492

On 9 Dec 2023 14:26 -0500, from greg@wooledge.org (Greg Wooledge):
>> If you upgraded this morning, then I would expect that you are okay
>> for now.
> 
> That doesn't appear to be true.
> 
>> Per #5 in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057843
>> the bug is present in kernel Debian package version 6.1.64-1. If you
>> are on 6.1.55-1 (current Bookworm stable per last night) you _likely_
>> aren't affected.
> 
> This is the kernel I got this morning:
> 
> ii  linux-image-6.1.0-14-amd64 6.1.64-1     amd64        Linux 6.1 for 64-bit PCs (signed)

Alexis Grigoriou is in UTC+0200 per the email headers; you are in
UTC-0500. Thus "this morning" is 7 hour later for you than for Alexis,
only because of that.

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

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

#264493

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 19:18:20 +0000
Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> wrote:

> On 9 Dec 2023 20:54 +0200, from alexis@nanoid.net (Alexis Grigoriou):
> > I just upgraded to Bookworm this morning. I did reboot a couple of
> > times but there seems to be no problem (yet). Is there anything I
> > should look for or do other than rebooting?  
> 
> If you upgraded this morning, then I would expect that you are okay
> for now.
> 
> Per #5 in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057843
> the bug is present in kernel Debian package version 6.1.64-1. If you
> are on 6.1.55-1 (current Bookworm stable per last night) you _likely_
> aren't affected. If you are on 6.1.55-1 (or earlier), just hold off on
> upgrades for now; and if you need to upgrade something else, take
> great care for now to ensure that no Linux kernel packages get
> upgraded to any version < 6.1.66, and preferably not < 6.1.66-1.
> 
> For versions, check:
> 
> * uname -v
> * dpkg -l linux-image-\*
> 
> In that bug report thread, #21 lists 6.1.66 as fixed upstream, and #28
> indicates that 6.1.66-1 includes the fix from upstream, and that it is
> being published.
> 

It appears from the link in the bug report that 6.5.x kernels
(sid/trixie) are not affected. Does anyone know otherwise?

https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20231205122122.dfhhoaswsfscuhc3@quack3/

Is the bug likely to affect all architectures? I have a Pi bookworm
(armhf) on 6.1.63-1, with 6.1.58-1 also installed. I can probably roll
back to 6.1.54-1 if necessary.

-- 
Joe

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

#264514

On 9 Dec 2023, at 19:18, Michael Kjörling wrote:

> If you are on 6.1.55-1 (or earlier), just hold off on
> upgrades for now; and if you need to upgrade something else, take
> great care for now to ensure that no Linux kernel packages get
> upgraded to any version < 6.1.66, and preferably not < 6.1.66-1.

TSM for this advice.

As I'm not used to having to "take great care" like this, I would
appreciate confirmation that what I've done is likely to be useful.

I've dropped a file into /etc/apt/preferences.d/ containing
the following text.

Package: linux-image-amd64
Pin: version 6.1.55-1
Pin-Priority: 1100

As I noticed that an upgrade to 6.1.64-1 was also in line for
linux-libc-dev, I did the same for this package too.

As a result, apt-cache policy is telling me

linux-image-amd64:
  Installed: 6.1.55-1
  Candidate: 6.1.55-1
  Version table:
     6.1.64-1 500
        500 https://ftp.debian.org/debian bookworm/main amd64 Packages
 *** 6.1.55-1 1100
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     6.1.52-1 500
        500 https://security.debian.org/debian-security bookworm-security/main amd64 Packages
linux-libc-dev:
  Installed: 6.1.55-1
  Candidate: 6.1.55-1
  Version table:
     6.1.64-1 500
        500 https://ftp.debian.org/debian bookworm/main amd64 Packages
 *** 6.1.55-1 1100
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     6.1.52-1 500
        500 https://security.debian.org/debian-security bookworm-security/main amd64 Packages

Thanks in anticipation of a simple yes or no.

Niall O'Reilly

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

#264531

On 2023-12-09 14:18, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2023 20:54 +0200, from alexis@nanoid.net (Alexis Grigoriou):
>> I just upgraded to Bookworm this morning. I did reboot a couple of
>> times but there seems to be no problem (yet). Is there anything I
>> should look for or do other than rebooting?
> If you upgraded this morning, then I would expect that you are okay
> for now.
>
> Per #5 in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057843
> the bug is present in kernel Debian package version 6.1.64-1. If you
> are on 6.1.55-1 (current Bookworm stable per last night) you _likely_
> aren't affected. If you are on 6.1.55-1 (or earlier), just hold off on
> upgrades for now; and if you need to upgrade something else, take
> great care for now to ensure that no Linux kernel packages get
> upgraded to any version < 6.1.66, and preferably not < 6.1.66-1.
>
> For versions, check:
>
> * uname -v
> * dpkg -l linux-image-\*
>
> In that bug report thread, #21 lists 6.1.66 as fixed upstream, and #28
> indicates that 6.1.66-1 includes the fix from upstream, and that it is
> being published.
>
Any idea when the fixed version will hit stable? With headless servers, 
it's a pain to downgrade to a previous kernel version.

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

#264532

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 11:50:18AM -0500, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 14:18, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> > On 9 Dec 2023 20:54 +0200, from alexis@nanoid.net (Alexis Grigoriou):
> > > I just upgraded to Bookworm this morning. I did reboot a couple of
> > > times but there seems to be no problem (yet). Is there anything I
> > > should look for or do other than rebooting?
> > If you upgraded this morning, then I would expect that you are okay
> > for now.
> > 
> > Per #5 in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057843
> > the bug is present in kernel Debian package version 6.1.64-1. If you
> > are on 6.1.55-1 (current Bookworm stable per last night) you _likely_
> > aren't affected. If you are on 6.1.55-1 (or earlier), just hold off on
> > upgrades for now; and if you need to upgrade something else, take
> > great care for now to ensure that no Linux kernel packages get
> > upgraded to any version < 6.1.66, and preferably not < 6.1.66-1.
> > 
> > For versions, check:
> > 
> > * uname -v
> > * dpkg -l linux-image-\*
> > 
> > In that bug report thread, #21 lists 6.1.66 as fixed upstream, and #28
> > indicates that 6.1.66-1 includes the fix from upstream, and that it is
> > being published.
> > 
> Any idea when the fixed version will hit stable? With headless servers, it's
> a pain to downgrade to a previous kernel version.
>

Give them a little while: release team are working on it right now as I type

I'm fairly sure they're pushing it out more or less immediately once they're
sure that it's built correctly and synced to all the appropriate places to
be further synced to mirrors

"Now" is almost exactly Sun 10 Dec 16:55:43 UTC 2023

Andy
(amacater@debian.org) 

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

#264533

On 2023-12-10, Andrew M.A. Cater <amacater@einval.com> wrote:
>
> "Now" is almost exactly Sun 10 Dec 16:55:43 UTC 2023

You mean in the Zulu Time Zone (as I am all at sea)?

> Andy
> (amacater@debian.org) 
>
>

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

#264535

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 05:09:15PM -0000, Curt wrote:
> On 2023-12-10, Andrew M.A. Cater <amacater@einval.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Now" is almost exactly Sun 10 Dec 16:55:43 UTC 2023
> 
> You mean in the Zulu Time Zone (as I am all at sea)?
> 
> > Andy
> > (amacater@debian.org) 
> >
> >
> 

Not this again :) GMT (was) the world standard reference point from 1884
and the Washington Conference (or thereabouts).

For most purposes GMT +0000 == UTC (or UCT if you're Francophone) ==
Zulu time (26 time zones to cope with half hour offsets - ?? go from A-Z??)
== "military time" (if you're US military) and quite possibly NATO time.

This fails with leap seconds, potentially, and also TAI astronomical time
seems to be its own animal.

Does this help?

Andy
(amacater@debian.org)
> 
> 

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

#264537

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

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 05:20:40PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 05:09:15PM -0000, Curt wrote:
> > On 2023-12-10, Andrew M.A. Cater <amacater@einval.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Now" is almost exactly Sun 10 Dec 16:55:43 UTC 2023
> > 
> > You mean in the Zulu Time Zone (as I am all at sea)?
> > 
> > > Andy
> > > (amacater@debian.org) 
> > >
> > >
> > 
> 
> Not this again :) GMT (was) the world standard reference point from 1884
> and the Washington Conference (or thereabouts).
> 
> For most purposes GMT +0000 == UTC (or UCT if you're Francophone) ==

Actually this would be TUC ("Temps universel coordonné), while English
would be CUT, but for once, they compromised on UTC [1] :-)

Cheers

[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTC
-- 
t

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

#264539

Andy writes:
> This fails with leap seconds, potentially, and also TAI astronomical
> time seems to be its own animal.

TAI isn't good enough for the astronomers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_Time

-- 
John Hasler 
john@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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

#264538

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 05:09:15PM -0000, Curt wrote:
> On 2023-12-10, Andrew M.A. Cater <amacater@einval.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Now" is almost exactly Sun 10 Dec 16:55:43 UTC 2023
> 
> You mean in the Zulu Time Zone (as I am all at sea)?

Use "date -u" to see current UTC time.  That should be sufficient to
let you know how long it has been since Andrew's "now".

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

#264541

On 2023-12-10 12:24, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 05:09:15PM -0000, Curt wrote:
>> On 2023-12-10, Andrew M.A. Cater <amacater@einval.com> wrote:
>>> "Now" is almost exactly Sun 10 Dec 16:55:43 UTC 2023
>> You mean in the Zulu Time Zone (as I am all at sea)?
> Use "date -u" to see current UTC time.  That should be sufficient to
> let you know how long it has been since Andrew's "now".
>
You're getting too complicated. The date stamp on his e-mail will 
display the correct local time (as you have set it) so I can see that he 
wrote it 30 minutes ago. That relative time is universal across time zones.

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

#264549

On 2023-12-10, Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023-12-10 12:24, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 05:09:15PM -0000, Curt wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-10, Andrew M.A. Cater <amacater@einval.com> wrote:
>>>> "Now" is almost exactly Sun 10 Dec 16:55:43 UTC 2023
>>> You mean in the Zulu Time Zone (as I am all at sea)?
>> Use "date -u" to see current UTC time.  That should be sufficient to
>> let you know how long it has been since Andrew's "now".
>>
> You're getting too complicated. The date stamp on his e-mail will 
> display the correct local time (as you have set it) so I can see that he 
> wrote it 30 minutes ago. That relative time is universal across time zones.
>
>

It is the notion of simultaneity itself (the now of now) that is
relative rather than universal.

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

#264552

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

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023, 12:47 PM Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:

> On 2023-12-10, Gary Dale <gary@extremeground.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-12-10 12:24, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >> On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 05:09:15PM -0000, Curt wrote:
> >>> On 2023-12-10, Andrew M.A. Cater <amacater@einval.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Now" is almost exactly Sun 10 Dec 16:55:43 UTC 2023
> >>> You mean in the Zulu Time Zone (as I am all at sea)?
> >> Use "date -u" to see current UTC time.  That should be sufficient to
> >> let you know how long it has been since Andrew's "now".
> >>
> > You're getting too complicated. The date stamp on his e-mail will
> > display the correct local time (as you have set it) so I can see that he
> > wrote it 30 minutes ago. That relative time is universal across time
> zones.
> >
> >
>
> It is the notion of simultaneity itself (the now of now) that is
> relative rather than universal.
>

I thought metaphysics was off-topic for this group. Moderators!! :-)

>

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web