On 11/02/2024 21.36, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
If I can add a comment: I (but note I'm not wearing a
nvidia-graphics-drivers maintainer hat) would support that, as there
are enough people affected by this. This is quite unfortunate and I'm
open to hear ideas how we can try to avoid such fallouts.
I was aware of the bug (#1062932) but not of the fact a point release
was upcoming. Even if I had been aware of the point release I'm not sure
if I had realized the impact of this bug to make me yell ;-)
Perhaps once point release dates have been choosen, this could be
announced to d-d-a@ as well.
I'm not following debian-release@ ... -ENOTIME
As you know we are strictly following upstream stable series (and
trying our best to keep an eye on as well regression reports upstream,
but OOT modules are not explicitly tested, so neither the nvidia ones)
Are autopkgtests being run for proposed-updates? That should have shown
the issue.
It was unfortunate that this upstream backported change appeared in
proposed-updates first and in sid only a few days later. And the
metapackages from linux-signed-amd64 are still depending on the version
before this change was introduced ... so I only could reproduce the
issue (and verify fixes) manually. (The module build test done during
the package build did not use the regressing headers.)
Then I had to spent quite some time verifying that the issue only
happened on amd64 and since the 460 series (despite of ppc64el having
even more calls to pfn_valid() dating back to the 418 series).
Andreas
PS: @Salvatore: Looking forward to see some linux 6.8 packages in
experimental s.t. I can throw them in my module build chroot to see what
breaks next :-) Or do you already have some early build available
somewhere while experimental is still preparing 6.7?
