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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #264672 > unrolled thread

Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now?

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

Contents

  Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now? "Rick Thomas" <rick.thomas@pobox.com> - 2023-12-13 03:10 +0100
    Re: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-13 03:30 +0100
      Re: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now? "Rick Thomas" <rick.thomas@pobox.com> - 2023-12-13 04:00 +0100
        The bug (was: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now?) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2023-12-13 05:10 +0100
          Re: The bug (was: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine  now?) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-12-13 05:50 +0100
            Re: The bug (was: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine  now?) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-13 06:40 +0100
              Re: The bug (was: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine  now?) Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2023-12-13 07:30 +0100
                Re: The bug John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2023-12-13 08:40 +0100
                  Re: The bug Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2023-12-13 14:50 +0100
              Re: The bug Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2023-12-13 16:00 +0100
                Re: The bug <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-13 16:20 +0100
                  Re: The bug Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-13 16:40 +0100
                    Re: The bug Pocket <pocket@columbus.rr.com> - 2023-12-13 17:50 +0100
                    Re: The bug <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-14 06:50 +0100
                    Re: The bug Kevin Price <kp@osnanet.de> - 2023-12-14 22:30 +0100
                      Re: The bug Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2023-12-15 15:50 +0100
                        Re: The bug Kevin Price <kp@osnanet.de> - 2023-12-15 16:20 +0100
                Re: The bug Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-13 16:20 +0100
                  Re: The bug Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2023-12-13 18:10 +0100
            Re: The bug (was: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now?) "Gareth Evans" <donotspam@fastmail.fm> - 2023-12-13 06:40 +0100
    Re: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now? Kevin Price <kp@osnanet.de> - 2023-12-14 18:50 +0100
      Re: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now? John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2023-12-15 05:40 +0100
        Re: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now? John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2023-12-16 02:10 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#264672 — Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now?

Is there a netinst iso that I can use to safely install Bookworm (stable) on a new PC?
If so, where can I download it from?
If not, how much longer is it likely to be before one exists?

Thanks!
Rick

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#264673

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 05:47:48PM -0800, Rick Thomas wrote:
> Is there a netinst iso that I can use to safely install Bookworm (stable) on a new PC?

Well, with a netinst, the issue isn't what's on the netinst medium.  It's
what's on the Debian mirrors, which the installer will use for most of
your packages.

Even if you were to use a Debian 12.2 installer image, you'd still end
up bringing in packages for Debian 12.4 during the installation.

If your machine has no wifi interface, you *might* be safe to install
now.  But if in doubt, I'd wait.

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

#264674

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023, at 6:22 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 05:47:48PM -0800, Rick Thomas wrote:
>> Is there a netinst iso that I can use to safely install Bookworm (stable) on a new PC?
>
> Well, with a netinst, the issue isn't what's on the netinst medium.  It's
> what's on the Debian mirrors, which the installer will use for most of
> your packages.
>
> Even if you were to use a Debian 12.2 installer image, you'd still end
> up bringing in packages for Debian 12.4 during the installation.
>
> If your machine has no wifi interface, you *might* be safe to install
> now.  But if in doubt, I'd wait.

Well, the machine in question has a wi-fi but I don't plan on using it.  Though unless I'm misunderstanding, just having a wi-fi (used or not) is enough to trigger the bug.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So, is there an ETA for the fix?

Thanks!
Rick

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

#264675 — The bug (was: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now?)

> Well, the machine in question has a wi-fi but I don't plan on using it.
> Though unless I'm misunderstanding, just having a wi-fi (used or not) is
> enough to trigger the bug.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

"the bug"?

What's this bug you're referring to?


        Stefan

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

#264676 — Re: The bug (was: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now?)

On Tue 12 Dec 2023 at 23:05:49 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Well, the machine in question has a wi-fi but I don't plan on using it.
> > Though unless I'm misunderstanding, just having a wi-fi (used or not) is
> > enough to trigger the bug.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> "the bug"?
> 
> What's this bug you're referring to?

Perhaps:

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00680.html

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00682.html

Cheers,
David.

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

#264677 — Re: The bug (was: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now?)

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

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:39:55PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Tue 12 Dec 2023 at 23:05:49 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > Well, the machine in question has a wi-fi but I don't plan on using it.
> > > Though unless I'm misunderstanding, just having a wi-fi (used or not) is
> > > enough to trigger the bug.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > 
> > "the bug"?
> > 
> > What's this bug you're referring to?
> 
> Perhaps:
> 
>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00680.html
> 
>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00682.html

Might be this:

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

Cheers
-- 
t

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

#264679 — Re: The bug (was: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now?)

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 06:35:08AM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:39:55PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > On Tue 12 Dec 2023 at 23:05:49 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > > Well, the machine in question has a wi-fi but I don't plan on using it.
> > > > Though unless I'm misunderstanding, just having a wi-fi (used or not) is
> > > > enough to trigger the bug.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > 
> > > "the bug"?
> > > 
> > > What's this bug you're referring to?
> > 
> > Perhaps:
> > 
> >   https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00680.html
> > 
> >   https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00682.html
> 
> Might be this:
> 
>   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057967
> 

An attempt to get beyond FUD

|Debian Bug report logs - #1057967
|linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64 renders my physical bookworm/gnome computer largely unusable version graph
|Package: src:linux; Maintainer for src:linux is Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>;
|Affects: src:broadcom-sta, src:linux, linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64
|Reported by: Kevin Price
|Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 02:03:01 UTC
|Severity: serious
|Tags: confirmed
|Found in version linux/6.1.66-1
|Fixed in version linux/6.1.67-1
|Done: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>

> Cheers
> t

Groeten
Geert Stappers
-- 
Silence is hard to parse

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

#264680 — Re: The bug

On 13/12/2023 15:24, Geert Stappers wrote:
> An attempt to get beyond FUD
> 
> |Debian Bug report logs - #1057967
> |linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64 renders my physical bookworm/gnome computer largely unusable version graph
> |Package: src:linux; Maintainer for src:linux is Debian Kernel Team <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>;
> |Affects: src:broadcom-sta, src:linux, linux-image-6.1.0-15-amd64
> |Reported by: Kevin Price
> |Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 02:03:01 UTC
> |Severity: serious
> |Tags: confirmed
> |Found in version linux/6.1.66-1
> |Fixed in version linux/6.1.67-1
> |Done: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>

Good to know, but as of now (Wed 13 Dec 07:20:59 UTC 2023):

$ apt policy linux-image-amd64
linux-image-amd64:
   Installed: 6.1.38-4
   Candidate: 6.1.66-1
   Version table:
      6.1.66-1 500
         500 https://deb.debian.org/debian bookworm/main amd64 Packages
      6.1.52-1 500
         500 http://security.debian.org/debian-security bookworm-security/main amd64 Packages
  *** 6.1.38-4 100
         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

Have to wait a few more hours I suppose.

-- 
John

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

#264681 — Re: The bug

On 13 Dec 2023 16:23 +0900, from john@bunsenlabs.org (John Crawley):
>> |Debian Bug report logs - #1057967
>> |Found in version linux/6.1.66-1
>> |Fixed in version linux/6.1.67-1
> 
> Good to know, but as of now (Wed 13 Dec 07:20:59 UTC 2023):
> [...]
> Have to wait a few more hours I suppose.

It was accepted into bookworm-proposed-updates on Dec 13 13:40 UTC, so
really _just now_.

https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/linux-signed-amd64

https://tracker.debian.org/news/1485406/accepted-linux-signed-amd64-61671-source-into-proposed-updates/

Let's hope this is the last of it!

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

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

#264682 — Re: The bug

tomas@tuxteam.de [2023-12-13 06:35:08] wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:39:55PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
>> On Tue 12 Dec 2023 at 23:05:49 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> > > Well, the machine in question has a wi-fi but I don't plan on using it.
>> > > Though unless I'm misunderstanding, just having a wi-fi (used or not) is
>> > > enough to trigger the bug.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>> > 
>> > "the bug"?
>> > 
>> > What's this bug you're referring to?
>> 
>> Perhaps:
>> 
>>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00680.html
>> 
>>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/12/msg00682.html
>
> Might be this:
>
>   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057967

If so, then IIUC the answer is a resounding "YES, it is safe!".
It just may be unusable, so you may have to downgrade to 6.1.0-13 until
the problem is fixed.

That's a very different issue from the ext4 corruption problem in
6.1.0-14 which can eat your data.


        Stefan

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

#264683 — Re: The bug

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

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:10:37AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 09:56:46AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > If so, then IIUC the answer is a resounding "YES, it is safe!".
> > It just may be unusable, so you may have to downgrade to 6.1.0-13 until
> > the problem is fixed.
> > 
> > That's a very different issue from the ext4 corruption problem in
> > 6.1.0-14 which can eat your data.
> 
> Safety is subjective.  A great deal will depend on what kind of system
> is being upgraded.  If it's a remote server to which you have limited
> or no physical access, booting a kernel that may "just be unusable"
> (enough to prevent editing GRUB menus and rebooting) could be a disaster.

...but that one most probably won't be attached via a Broadcom to the 'net.

Who knows, though :)

> I speak for no one but myself, but I'm gonna wait at least a week before
> upgrading past 6.1.0-13-amd64 on any of my systems.

Was a crazy week, wasn't it?

Cheers
-- 
t

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

#264686 — Re: The bug

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 04:13:44PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:10:37AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 09:56:46AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > If so, then IIUC the answer is a resounding "YES, it is safe!".
> > > It just may be unusable, so you may have to downgrade to 6.1.0-13 until
> > > the problem is fixed.
> > > 
> > > That's a very different issue from the ext4 corruption problem in
> > > 6.1.0-14 which can eat your data.
> > 
> > Safety is subjective.  A great deal will depend on what kind of system
> > is being upgraded.  If it's a remote server to which you have limited
> > or no physical access, booting a kernel that may "just be unusable"
> > (enough to prevent editing GRUB menus and rebooting) could be a disaster.
> 
> ...but that one most probably won't be attached via a Broadcom to the 'net.
> 
> Who knows, though :)

My superficial understanding, after skimming through the bug report,
is that problems could be triggered just by *loading* one of the
affected wifi driver modules.  This would happen for any machine that
has one of the "right" kinds of wifi hardware, even if that hardware
isn't actively being used.  (Not just Broadcom either; at least one
person reported an issue with Realtek.)

Perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly, but I still feel it's wise to wait
a little while and see if any more problems pop up, if stability is
important to you.  I also salute the courage of those who've tested
these recent changes.  Thank you all.

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

#264688 — Re: The bug

On 12/13/23 10:33, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 04:13:44PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:10:37AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 09:56:46AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> If so, then IIUC the answer is a resounding "YES, it is safe!".
>>>> It just may be unusable, so you may have to downgrade to 6.1.0-13 until
>>>> the problem is fixed.
>>>>
>>>> That's a very different issue from the ext4 corruption problem in
>>>> 6.1.0-14 which can eat your data.
>>> Safety is subjective.  A great deal will depend on what kind of system
>>> is being upgraded.  If it's a remote server to which you have limited
>>> or no physical access, booting a kernel that may "just be unusable"
>>> (enough to prevent editing GRUB menus and rebooting) could be a disaster.
>> ...but that one most probably won't be attached via a Broadcom to the 'net.
>>
>> Who knows, though :)
> My superficial understanding, after skimming through the bug report,
> is that problems could be triggered just by *loading* one of the
> affected wifi driver modules.  This would happen for any machine that
> has one of the "right" kinds of wifi hardware, even if that hardware
> isn't actively being used.  (Not just Broadcom either; at least one
> person reported an issue with Realtek.)
>
> Perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly, but I still feel it's wise to wait
> a little while and see if any more problems pop up, if stability is
> important to you.  I also salute the courage of those who've tested
> these recent changes.  Thank you all.
>
BAH Humbug....

I updated/upgraded my amd64 on bookworms and it has not had any issues.

Chicken little syndrome?

-- 

It's not easy to be me

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

#264720 — Re: The bug

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

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:33:15AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:

[...]

> Perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly, but I still feel it's wise to wait
> a little while and see if any more problems pop up, if stability is
> important to you.  I also salute the courage of those who've tested
> these recent changes.  Thank you all.

Absolutely, of course. And your reading may be spot-on.

Cheers
-- 
t

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

#264752 — Re: The bug

I largely agree with Greg.

Am 13.12.23 um 16:33 schrieb Greg Wooledge:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 04:13:44PM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:10:37AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 09:56:46AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> If so, then IIUC the answer is a resounding "YES, it is safe!".

Safe not to fry your ext4 by Bug#1057843, yes, Stefan.
Safe in general, as originally asked by Rick? He might be lucky, or
maybe less so.

>>> Safety is subjective.  A great deal will depend on what kind of system
>>> is being upgraded.  If it's a remote server to which you have limited
>>> or no physical access, booting a kernel that may "just be unusable"
>>> (enough to prevent editing GRUB menus and rebooting) could be a disaster.

Absolutely, Greg.

>> ...but that one most probably won't be attached via a Broadcom to the 'net.

Tomas: Servers are most usually not connected through wifi alone. But
"the bug" (#1057967/#1057969) won't only disable the wifi adapter, but
would probably make the running computer largely unusable, even unable
to shut down. That's confirmed. In that case you still might have access
through LAN IOT possibly fix GRUB's configuration, if you find a way to
do that without sudo, and working around whatever problems you'll
encounter attempting that. But even then, that new GRUB configuration
will never come into effect until you forcibly reboot/power cycle the
computer. (which has always been a bad thing to do in the first place)

Under these circumstances, "the bug" can become a huge problem. Maybe
unlikely for many use cases, but then huge.

> My superficial understanding, after skimming through the bug report,
> is that problems could be triggered just by *loading* one of the
> affected wifi driver modules.

With less superficial understanding, I fully agree with Greg.

> This would happen for any machine that
> has one of the "right" kinds of wifi hardware, even if that hardware
> isn't actively being used.

Exactly. Mere presence of wifi adapters will cause debian to load their
respective wifi driver modules, that in turn will invoke cfg80211, maybe
or not triggering cfg80211's bug.

> (Not just Broadcom either; at least one
> person reported an issue with Realtek.)

IIUC, that was Olivier's rtl88x2bu non-free wifi driver too, causing the
bug, but not Alberto's r8169, which is for wired LAN.

> Perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly, but I still feel it's wise to wait
> a little while and see if any more problems pop up, if stability is
> important to you.

Yes. If you're up to gambling, throw in all the computers you're willing
to spare. In case of solely remote controlled servers: I wouldn't.
Risking to lose control of servers is too much of a bet for too little
of a win, IMHO.

> I also salute the courage of those who've tested
> these recent changes.  Thank you all.

Appreciation for my small part (in pointing the problem out in the first
place) accepted, but please send your muchos kudos to Salvatore
Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>, who deserves credits for solving it.
-- 
Kevin Price

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

#264785 — Re: The bug

>>>>> If so, then IIUC the answer is a resounding "YES, it is safe!".
> Safe not to fry your ext4 by Bug#1057843, yes, Stefan.
> Safe in general, as originally asked by Rick?
> He might be lucky, or maybe less so.

But that's always true: the GNU/Linux system, like all sufficiently
complex software systems, is chuck full of bugs, many of which can
indeed have disastrous effects if they manifest under the
"right" circumstances.

AFAICT the only thing really different about "the bug"
(#1057967/#1057969) is that it comes right after a bug that made a lot
of noise (bug#1057843), so people have temporarily lost faith.



        Stefan

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

#264787 — Re: The bug

Am 15.12.23 um 15:47 schrieb Stefan Monnier:
> But that's always true: the GNU/Linux system, like all sufficiently
> complex software systems, is chuck full of bugs, many of which can
> indeed have disastrous effects if they manifest under the
> "right" circumstances.

Here are some foreseeable and preventable ones.

> AFAICT the only thing really different about "the bug"
> (#1057967/#1057969) is that it comes right after a bug that made a lot
> of noise (bug#1057843), so people have temporarily lost faith.

No faith lost on my part. And bugs are not evaluated in the amount of
noise the preceding one made.
-- 
Kevin Price

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

#264684 — Re: The bug

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 09:56:46AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> If so, then IIUC the answer is a resounding "YES, it is safe!".
> It just may be unusable, so you may have to downgrade to 6.1.0-13 until
> the problem is fixed.
> 
> That's a very different issue from the ext4 corruption problem in
> 6.1.0-14 which can eat your data.

Safety is subjective.  A great deal will depend on what kind of system
is being upgraded.  If it's a remote server to which you have limited
or no physical access, booting a kernel that may "just be unusable"
(enough to prevent editing GRUB menus and rebooting) could be a disaster.

I speak for no one but myself, but I'm gonna wait at least a week before
upgrading past 6.1.0-13-amd64 on any of my systems.

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

#264690 — Re: The bug

On Wed, 2023-12-13 at 10:10 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> If it's a remote server to which you have limited
> or no physical access, booting a kernel that may "just be unusable"
> (enough to prevent editing GRUB menus and rebooting) could be a disaster.

Which is what happened a few years ago to me when an update broke
kernels running under the Xen hypervisor, which the VPS running my
email was.

-- 
Tixy

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

#264678 — Re: The bug (was: Is it safe to install Bookworm on a new machine now?)

Can anyone please explain:

1. Why upgrades of stable into a potentially seriously compromised state were allowed to continue, twice, rather than pulling the upgrades? or...

2. Why the best temporary solution isn't to revert the kernel to the last known good version so upgrades-other-than-kernel can continue?  There may be some versioning jiggery-pokery needed, but doesn't the +deb12xxx (or other) naming convention take care of that?  I'm sure I've seen packages previously with names like foo-1.3-really-1.2

This really doesn't seem to have been handled well from an official mitigation/communication pov.  There only seems to have been a debian-announce announcement re 12.3 issues.

I'm inclined to think there must be reasons why things that seem obvious have not been done, and keen to understand why, if so.  

Do 1 or 2 above involve disproportionate effort?  Were there backwards-incompatible changes to other things (such as filesystems) in the latest kernel(s), so reversion = breakage for some upgraded systems unaffected by recent issues?

Thanks,
Gareth

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web