On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 21:57, Ray Kinsella <raykinsell...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for this - you are kind to look at this issue.
You're welcome - I enjoyed learning a bit about the Quark hardware, and the esoteric lock bug. A shame I didn't learn about it five years ago I suppose, but there we are. > It's been a long time since Intel manufactured the X1000 / Quark, I am not > sure how many are left in the wild. > Do you think this is something that Debian might want to package and ship? I should admit that I'm not a Debian maintainer or developer, just a passerby who attempts to make progress on bugs that interest to me (possibly to the annoyance of actual DMs/DDs), so my opinion is somewhat external (i.e.: take with a grain of salt). It's entirely possible that the maintenance for an additional package wouldn't be worthwhile -- and in general, 32-bit x86 support in Debian does tend to be dwindling. Basically: someone has to be motivated about it enough to be responsible for the package. On the other hand: it seemed to me based on a quick look that much of the packaging work is already in place, and that this package would be opt-in for anyone who wanted to use it. The typical use case would be people preparing root filesystems on removable/replicable storage for later (re)attachment to Quark systems, I'd guess. Even so: the LD_PRELOAD and GRUB commandline stuff does make me a bit wary - generally we shouldn't make any unnecessary or unexpected modifications to the target system, because those should be the responsibility of the sysadmin and not of the maintainer. Do you know whether Intel shipped many Quark units? I see that manufacturing stopped in Y2019, which isn't too long ago, but I don't know much about how widely-adopted they were. It was the energy-efficiency focus of them that gathered my interest in the first place, FWIW. > On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 12:27, James Addison <j...@jp-hosting.net> wrote: >> >> Followup-For: Bug #738575 >> X-Debbugs-Cc: raykinsell...@gmail.com >> >> If I understand correctly, then Ray's libx1000 library[1] provides a way to >> work around this in software. It uses some LD_PRELOAD magic, and from what I >> remember, it's worth being careful when using that approach. >> >> I opened an RFP[2] for libx1000 earlier this year, and took another look at >> the >> Debian packaging metadata in the codebase today, resulting in a few suggested >> edits as a pull request on GitHub - cc'ing you to notify you about that, Ray. >> I'm unsure whether some of the proposed postinst steps are required, and will >> ask you about those upstream too. >> >> [1] - http://ashroe.eu/x1000/2016/10/21/fixing-lock-prefix-on-x1000.html >> >> [2] - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1037070
