Control: notforwarded -1 On Mon, 2023-05-29 at 14:26 +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > On Mon, 2023-05-29 at 07:37 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > > Hi, > > > > [reducing the people in CC, hope I didn't drop too many and those > > still there are interested] > > > > On Mon, 29 May 2023 00:14:10 +0000 Mathias Gibbens > > <gib...@debian.org> wrote: > > > What version of lxcfs is currently installed on the > > > ci.debian.net machines? I'm guessing from the kernel version > > > they've been upgraded to bookworm, so lxcfs should be at 5.0.3-1, > > > but I'd like to clarify that. > > > > I just ran $(apt-cache show lxcfs | grep Version) on all the worker > > hosts and indeed they all run 5.0.3-1.
Thanks for confirming that -- for the time being I've unforwarded this bug from upstream issue #553 as it looks like this is a new problem. > > > > > lxcfs 5.0.3-1 does indeed include the referenced fix for > > > upstream issue #553, and has been in testing since 2023-01-22. If > > > the CI machines have that version installed, then I'd lean > > > towards a related but distinct issue than the one identified at > > > the moment. > > > > Is there more information I can get for you from one of the > > effected architectures? Can you grab /proc/cpuinfo from a physical CI host as well as from within a container for the armel, armhf, and arm64 architectures? That will let us see what difference(s) lxcfs is presenting and might give a clue for the root issue. Since only the 32bit arm architectures appear to be affected, I'm also curious to see what the arm64 cpuinfo is. > > > > Paul > > PS: I missed former messages due to a minor mistake in my address, > > but I'm now subscribed. > I think you should keep gibmat in the Cc list. :) +1 :) Mathias
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part