On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 10:10:53AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > 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 . Wonderful, thanks for pointing this out! Jari, try asking whatever distro you are getting these rebuilt packages from to update their scripts and all should be good. thanks, greg k-h
