stable.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jari Ruusu <jariruusu@protonmail.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Subject: Re: glibc VETO for kernel version SUBLEVEL >= 255
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 10:10:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YVArDZSq9oaTFakz@eldamar.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YVAhOlTsb0NK0BVi@kroah.com>

Hi,

On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 09:28:58AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 07:23:33AM +0000, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> > Earlier this year there was some discussion about kernel version numbers
> > after 4.9.255 and 4.4.255. Problem was 8-bit limitation for SUBLEVEL
> > number in stable kernel versions. The fix was to freeze LINUX_VERSION_CODE
> > number at x.x.255 and to continue incrementing SUBLEVEL number. Seems
> > there are more more fallout from that decision. At least some versions of
> > glibc do not play well with larger SUBLEVEL numbers.
> > 
> > 
> > # uname -s -r -m
> > Linux 4.9.283-QEMU armv6l
> > # apt upgrade
> > Reading package lists... Done
> > Building dependency tree
> > Reading state information... Done
> > Calculating upgrade... Done
> > The following packages will be upgraded:
> >  [SNIP]
> > Fetched 145 MB in 1min 57s (1244 kB/s)
> > Reading changelogs... Done
> > Preconfiguring packages ...
> > (Reading database ... 39028 files and directories currently installed.)
> > Preparing to unpack .../libc6-dbg_2.28-10+rpt2+rpi1_armhf.deb ...
> > Unpacking libc6-dbg:armhf (2.28-10+rpt2+rpi1) over (2.28-10+rpi1) ...
> > Preparing to unpack .../libc6-dev_2.28-10+rpt2+rpi1_armhf.deb ...
> > Unpacking libc6-dev:armhf (2.28-10+rpt2+rpi1) over (2.28-10+rpi1) ...
> > Preparing to unpack .../libc-dev-bin_2.28-10+rpt2+rpi1_armhf.deb ...
> > Unpacking libc-dev-bin (2.28-10+rpt2+rpi1) over (2.28-10+rpi1) ...
> > Preparing to unpack .../linux-libc-dev_1%3a1.20210831-3~buster_armhf.deb ...
> > Unpacking linux-libc-dev:armhf (1:1.20210831-3~buster) over (1:1.20210527-1) ...
> > Preparing to unpack .../libc6_2.28-10+rpt2+rpi1_armhf.deb ...
> > ERROR: Your kernel version indicates a revision number
> > of 255 or greater.  Glibc has a number of built in
> > assumptions that this revision number is less than 255.
> > If you\'ve built your own kernel, please make sure that any
> > custom version numbers are appended to the upstream
> > kernel number with a dash or some other delimiter.
> > 
> > dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.28-10+rpt2+rpi1_armhf.deb (--unpack):
> >  new libc6:armhf package pre-installation script subprocess returned error exit status 1
> > Errors were encountered while processing:
> >  /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.28-10+rpt2+rpi1_armhf.deb
> > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Above upgrade works normally if I edit top level Linux source Makefile to
> > say "SUBLEVEL = 0" and re-compile new kernel.
> > 
> > I am not pointing any fingers here, but it seems that either glibc code or
> > stable kernel versioning is messed up.
> 
> Are you sure this isn't just a warning coming from a script that apt is
> running when trying to install glibc?  Or is this from the glibc package
> itself?
> 
> And what exactly is it testing?  We fixed the build time detection of
> the kernel version here, so you should be able to build glibc properly.
> 
> This is the first time we've seen this reported, are people using the
> newer kernels on systems that are not using glibc?

They are probably not using a problematic combination or a
distribution kernel on those systems. Looking from the mentioned
versions above this looks like a version derived from Debian buster.

Recently prompted due to https://bugs.debian.org/987266 the check was
removed in the postinst script of libc in Debian:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=987266 .

Regards,
Salvatore

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-26  8:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-26  7:23 glibc VETO for kernel version SUBLEVEL >= 255 Jari Ruusu
2021-09-26  7:28 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-09-26  8:10   ` Salvatore Bonaccorso [this message]
2021-09-26  9:29     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-09-26 10:58       ` Jari Ruusu
2021-09-26 11:24         ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-09-26 11:31           ` Jari Ruusu
2021-09-26 11:39             ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-09-26 15:03               ` Willy Tarreau
2021-09-26 16:18               ` Jari Ruusu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YVArDZSq9oaTFakz@eldamar.lan \
    --to=carnil@debian.org \
    --cc=aurelien@aurel32.net \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jariruusu@protonmail.com \
    --cc=jirislaby@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mchehab+huawei@kernel.org \
    --cc=sashal@kernel.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).