On 2025-12-22 10:14, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > Quoting Aurelien Jarno (2025-11-16 14:29:12) > > On 2025-11-16 04:51, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > Joel Johnson wrote on Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 08:45:10 -0600: > > > > Package: libc > > > > Version: 2.41-12 > > > > Severity: grave > > > > > > > > (Marking as grave since it leads to data loss) > > > > > > > > An issue has been identified and fixed upstream causing data loss using > > > > copy_file_range. It is most prominent with OpenZFS but also appears to > > > > have > > > > potential impacts on FUSE. I would request that this be patched for a > > > > trixie > > > > update. I didn't see any existing issue for this, apologies if it's a > > > > duplicate. > > > > > > > > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=7107bebf19286f42dcb0a97581137a5893c16206 > > > > > > > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33245 > > > > > > > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=79139 > > > > > > Morning. I haven't run into the buggy behaviour, but I did run into > > > this ticket in the apt-listchanges(1) output during an upgrade, and I'm > > > not sure whether the bug would impact me if I proceeded with the upgrade. > > > > > > Two questions: > > > > > > 1. Considering this bug is described as "data loss" and appears in > > > apt-listchanges(1) output for folks upgrading oldstable→stable, could > > > someone please summarize situations in which the bug is known /not/ > > > to occur even under 2.41-12 (currently in trixie)? > > > > > > I'm not asking for an exhaustive list; just for common known-good > > > scenarios. Something of the form "It's safe to upgrade to trixie and > > > glibc/2.41-12 as long as you don't do X, Y, or Z" would be great. > > > > The bugs does not appear with usual filesystems like ext4 or xfs. > > > > > 2. The bug is fixed in 2.41-2 in experimental, but hasn't yet been fixed > > > > Actually in 2.42-2. > > > > > in either sid or trixie (as requested by the OP). Is the bug > > > expected to be fixed in trixie? > > > > Yes, this is planned, but it has to be fixed before being able to fix > > it in trixie. > > > > > I'm not sure what blocks 2.42 from being uploaded to sid. > > > > The plan was indeed to stop the maintenance of 2.41 in sid and upload > > 2.42 to sid. A lot of effort has been put on preparing 2.42, including > > an archive rebuild. Unfortunately this is currently blocked by #1115881 > > with no answer from the Ada maintainers... > > > > After that I lost all my motivation to work on glibc. I guess, I'll try > > to upload a new 2.41 version to sid, so that we can fix the bug in > > trixie... > > I am sorry to hear that, I hope your motivation recovered now that 2.42 is in > testing!
Yep. > Is there anything I can do to help get a fixed 2.41 into 13.4 (preparing the > update, testing it, filing p-u, ..)? The update took longer than expected, as i got sidetracked by pushy loong64 people. Anyway I have prepared it yesterday and did some additional testing in between. I believe it's ready, I have just pushed the change to salsa, don't hesitate to do some additional testing. I'll fill the p-u bug today or tomorrow. Regards Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B [email protected] http://aurel32.net
