opinions on using kernel 2.6.24-amd64 on lenny

the trooper · 10-21-2008, 03:16 PM

Hello all,
I am using kernel 2.6.24-amd64 on Lenny/Testing.
I have noticed that there are security updates(kernel)available for Etchnhalf using the 2.6.24 kernel.
My question is am i still ok to be using this kernel version as it has been removed from the Debian testing repositories?.
I can't use the latest kernel version 2.6.26 at the moment,see previous thread:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-lenny-673596/

Am i being over cautious? or should i be not using this machine to connect to the internet until i have this kernel issue sorted.
I hope i have been clear in explaining the problem.
Your opinions please.

Regards.
The trooper.

Quakeboy02 · 10-21-2008, 03:28 PM

If truly interested in how this stuff works, download 2.6.27.2 from kernel.org, configure it, compile it, install it, and go. You'll learn a lot about linux along the way.

the trooper · 10-21-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

If truly interested in how this stuff works, download 2.6.27.2 from kernel.org, configure it, compile it, install it, and go. You'll learn a lot about linux along the way.

Although that is not answering the question,it is at least one possibility.
As you appear to be running the 2.6.27 kernel, what do you do for additional packages needed for installing the Nvidia driver?
Packages such as kbuild,kernel headers-common etc.
Until the kernel is accepted into the Debian repositories surely these packages will not be available?.Or are they available from another resource?

Quakeboy02 · 10-21-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the trooper

Although that is not answering the question,it is at least one possibility.
As you appear to be running the 2.6.27 kernel, what do you do for additional packages needed for installing the Nvidia driver?
Packages such as kbuild,kernel headers-common etc.
Until the kernel is accepted into the Debian repositories surely these packages will not be available?.Or are they available from another resource?

Kbuild is in the source package. The kernel-headers package is not needed, because you have the actual sources. The kernel-headers packages is just a subset of the source containing only the header files. It is linked out of either /lib/modules/kernelversion/source or /lib/modules/kernelversion/build. I'd have to look it up to see which one the nvidia driver needs. In any case, when building an nvidia driver from a .run file, it looks in the appropriate place and the headers are there.

OTOH, you will need to expend some effort installing packages to build the kernel, as well as going through the effort of configuring and installing it. If this interests you, then read through this link. Ignore the symlink instruction in 2.2. And, it would be better on your first effort to use "make oldconfig" rather than using "make menuconfig".

http://howtoforge.com/kernel_compilation_debian_etch

Quakeboy02 · 10-21-2008, 04:24 PM

Oh, yeah, and a caveat regarding nvidia's downloaded drivers. After installing a new kernel, you will have to reinstall the driver. In the case of 2.6.27, you may have to install a beta version. I've been using 177.67. I haven't looked lately to see if they have a 2.6.27 driver out of beta, yet. For "shipped" drivers, I dunno. It's been too long since I used "nv".

the trooper · 10-21-2008, 04:27 PM

Quote:

The kernel-headers package is not needed, because you have the actual sources

Strange,when i have installed the Nvidia driver i have always had to install this package.But i'll take your word for it.

Thanks for the link and additional advice,i will give it a go tomorrow.
I will post back if i run into trouble.

Regards.
The trooper.

Total-MAdMaN · 10-21-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the trooper

Strange,when i have installed the Nvidia driver i have always had to install this package.But i'll take your word for it.

That's because you haven't compiled your own kernel. When compiling your own, you have the complete source code, including the headers, so don't need the kernel-headers package.

the trooper · 10-21-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

That's because you haven't compiled your own kernel. When compiling your own, you have the complete source code, including the headers, so don't need the kernel-headers package.

That would make sense.......
Fingers crossed for my first kernel build!

Quakeboy02 · 10-21-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the trooper

That would make sense.......
Fingers crossed for my first kernel build!

Cool stuff! Keep us posted. You get a gold star if it works the first time. A second one if you can explain why it worked. LOL

JimBass · 10-21-2008, 06:02 PM

Something else to consider is if the newest kernel is even necessary. If you have a functional kernel, and aren't adding new hardware (unsupported by your current kernel), what is the point? Yes, etchandahalf has 2.6.24, etch uses 2.6.18. 2.6.18 is older, and probably "not as good", but you may be adding a ton of trouble to yourself for no appreciable gain. Many of the kernel flaws that have been found are indeed flaws, but if the flaw impacts say, vsftp server, and you don't run vsftp server on your machine, then you have no issue. Odds are very high if this is your desktop machine, that a good number of the found kernel flaws can't touch you. That is why reading the release notes for each upgrade becomes important. If it has no baring on you, don't sweat it.

That being said, I frequently do make my own kernel, and enjoy doing it! I just don't like the microsoftian, "there is new software, you must by the new software immediately" vibe that seems to accompany new kernel updates.

Peace,
JimBass

the trooper · 10-22-2008, 08:47 AM

Well i have started to build the kernel from the guide,and have hit my first problem.
Here is a quote from the guide:

Quote:

2.5 Build The Kernel
To build the kernel, execute these two commands:
make-kpkg clean
fakeroot make-kpkg --initrd --append-to-version=-custom kernel_image kernel_headers
After --append-to-version= you can write any string that helps you identify the kernel, but it must begin with a minus (-) and must not contain whitespace.
Now be patient, the kernel compilation can take some hours, depending on your kernel configuration and your processor speed.

So i appended the command as follows:

Code:

Pc1:/usr/src/linux-2.6.27.2# fakeroot make-kpkg --initrd --append-to-version=-linux-image-2.6.27.2-custom_2.6.27.2-custom-10.00.custom_amd64.deb

Which gave me an error of:

Code:

Error: The extended version may only contain
 lowercase alphanumerics and  the  characters  - +  .
 The current value is: -linux-image-2.6.27.2-custom_2.6.27.2-custom-10.00.custom_amd64.deb
 Aborting.

So my question is,is it just a question of changing the underscores for a minus?
Or have i made a complete blunder with the command?.
Being a cautious kind of guy i would just like to check i am doing things the right way before i go any further.

Here's a link for the full guide just in case:

[HTML]http://howtoforge.com/kernel_compilation_debian_etch[/HTML]

Your advice is appreciated!

Regards.
The trooper.

Quakeboy02 · 10-22-2008, 11:38 AM

It's not meant for a sentence. Just put something like -amd64 or -k7 or something like that.

Example

Code:

fakeroot make-kpkg --append-to-version -amd64 --initrd kernel_image

The result will be what you want.

the trooper · 10-22-2008, 02:19 PM

Thanks Quakeboy02 that helped!
Got the kernel built and installed after several attempts at the compiling stage.
My next problem is when i boot the new kernel it hangs and gives me an error message of:

Code:

waiting for root filesystem....

So i'm now off to google the problem.
Just thought i would post an update.
BTW if anyone else has seen this problem before please post any suggestions in the meantime.

Regards
The trooper.

Quakeboy02 · 10-22-2008, 03:14 PM

Generally this is a SATA drive issue and related to what's in the menu.lst. Here is an example from mine:

Code:

title		Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.27.2-smp
root		(hd0,0)
kernel		/boot/vmlinuz-2.6.27.2-smp root=/dev/sda1 ro 
initrd		/boot/initrd.img-2.6.27.2-smp

Note the /dev/sda1. What does yours read? Post the exact text.

Someone posted on another thread the boot option to treat sata as ide, but I haven't been able to find it.

the trooper · 10-22-2008, 03:29 PM

Here's mine:

Code:

title		Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.27.2-amd64
root		(hd0,1)
kernel		/vmlinuz-2.6.27.2-amd64 root=/dev/sda3 ro 
initrd		/initrd.img-2.6.27.2-amd64

Also here's my fstab:

Code:

Pc1:~# cat /etc/fstab
# /etc/fstab: static file system information.
#
# <file system> <mount point>   <type>  <options>       <dump>  <pass>
proc            /proc           proc    defaults        0       0
/dev/sda3       /               ext3    errors=remount-ro 0       1
/dev/sda2       /boot           ext3    defaults        0       2
/dev/sda5       /home           ext3    defaults        0       2
/dev/sda6       none            swap    sw              0       0
/dev/hda        /media/cdrom0   udf,iso9660 user,noauto     0       0

And fdisk:

Code:

Pc1:~# fdisk -l

Disk /dev/sda: 320.0 GB, 320072933376 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 38913 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x3acf3ace

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1              14        5017    40194630    7  HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sda2   *           1          13      104391   83  Linux
/dev/sda3            5018        9880    39062047+  83  Linux
/dev/sda4            9881       31278   171879435    5  Extended
/dev/sda5            9881       31156   170899438+  83  Linux
/dev/sda6           31157       31278      979933+  82  Linux swap / Solaris

Let me know if you need anything else...