So, looking at 2.1.14 in lunar-proposed - This is not bugfix-only (or even bugfix and hardware-enablement only - it includes, at least, changes to colourise the output of some commands). Also, I think this will introduce bug #2046082 into lunar and jammy?
I see we've accepted some ZFS micro-releases in the past. I'm not familiar with the circumstances surrounding those, but I'm uncomfortable with this one. It seems clear that zfs upstream do not have the same expectations of stable releases as we do, so I'm not confident that just taking an upstream microrelease will be acceptable. I'm not saying a hard “no”, but what investigation was done to determine how much effort cherry-picks to jammy/lunar would be? What are the actual set of changes between 2.1.9 (/2.1.5 for jammy) and 2.1.14, and are any of those changes maybe unsuitable for an SRU? We don't appear to have any special process documented for zfs - maybe we should? Regressions have extremely high potential impact but at the same time we *do* need to sometimes make significant updates for hardware enablement, and, to the best of my knowledge, unlike the hwe kernel the zfs changes are not opt-in. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel Packages, which is subscribed to zfs-linux in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2044657 Title: Multiple data corruption issues in zfs Status in zfs-linux package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Status in zfs-linux source package in Xenial: Confirmed Status in zfs-linux source package in Bionic: Confirmed Status in zfs-linux source package in Focal: Confirmed Status in zfs-linux source package in Jammy: Confirmed Status in zfs-linux source package in Lunar: Confirmed Status in zfs-linux source package in Mantic: Incomplete Status in zfs-linux source package in Noble: Fix Released Bug description: [ Impact ] * Multiple data corruption issues have been identified and fixed in ZFS. Some of them, at varying real-life reproducibility frequency have been deterimed to affect very old zfs releases. Recommendation is to upgrade to 2.2.2 or 2.1.14 or backport dnat patch alone. This is to ensure users get other potentially related fixes and runtime tunables to possibly mitigate other bugs that are related and are being fixed upstream for future releases. * For jammy the 2.1.14 upgrade will bring HWE kernel support and also compatiblity/support for hardened kernel builds that mitigate SLS (straight-line-speculation). [ Test Plan ] * !!! Danger !!! use reproducer from https://zfsonlinux.topicbox.com/groups/zfs-discuss/T12876116b8607cdb and confirm if that issue is resolved or not. Do not run on production ZFS pools / systems. * autopkgtest pass (from https://ubuntu-archive- team.ubuntu.com/proposed-migration/ ) * adt-matrix pass (from https://kernel.ubuntu.com/adt-matrix/ ) * kernel regression zfs testsuite pass (from Kernel team RT test results summary, private) * zsys integration test pass (upgrade of zsys installed systems for all releases) * zsys install test pass (for daily images of LTS releases only that have such installer support, as per iso tracker test case) * LXD (ping LXD team to upgrade vendored in tooling to 2.2.2 and 2.1.14, and test LXD on these updated kernels) [ Where problems could occur ] * Upgrade to 2.1.14 on jammy with SLS mitigations compatiblity will introduce slight slow down on amd64 (for hw accelerated assembly code-paths only in the encryption primitives) * Uncertain of the perfomance impact of the extra checks in dnat patch fix itself. Possibly affecting speed of operation, at the benefit of correctness. [ Other Info ] * https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/15571 is most current consideration of affairs To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/zfs-linux/+bug/2044657/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kernel-packages Post to : kernel-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kernel-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
