Software Update Problem on Xubuntu

Topic

New Reply

Readers of AskWoody will be familiar with the problems caused by recent Windows Updates, but last week I had the misfortune to receive a Software Update that scuppered my Xubuntu installation.

I’m running Xubuntu 18.04 (32 bit) on a Dell Latitude D600, where it dual boots with Windows XP – no Microsoft malware for that, nowadays! Unfortunately, I can’t precisely identify the source of the problem, as Linux Software Updates don’t come with any ID, like the Microsoft KB system, but attached is a screenshot of the offending update.

When I installed the update the PC needed to reboot. On rebooting I noticed some screen interference and then the familiar blue Xubuntu splash screen failed to appear. The system then hung at a blank screen, with no option but to power off.

On powering up again the boot process seemed to enter a diagnostic mode (sorry I can’t be more precise as I’m not that familiar with Linux; I’ve only been experimenting with Linux systems for a couple of months) and Xubuntu did eventually start. If I then did a normal shut-down and restarted, the same boot problems repeated.

Fortunately, I had a recent disk image made with Macrium Reflect, so I reversed the software update by restoring the Xubuntu partition. Using the Macrium Reflect Rescue Media, I deleted the Ext4 and Linux Swap partitions and replaced them with those from the backup; I didn’t touch the Windows partition at all.

After restarting, I tried installing the Software Update again and got the same problems as before.

At some stage during the boot process I got an uncontrollable scrolling of gobbledegook which eventually stopped. On the screen were lines such as “BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 0274be07” and “Thread overran stack, or stack corrupted.”

When I booted from the “Advanced options for Ubuntu” menu I had several choices. When I booted using “Ubuntu, with Linux 4.15.0-18 (generic)” or “Ubuntu, with Linux 4.15.0-47 (generic)” the system booted normally. Both of these options were present before the software update. However, if I booted with the option “Ubuntu, with Linux 4.15.0-48 (generic)”, which appeared after the update, the system hung, as described.

A very useful website for those new to Linux is the Easy Linux Tips Project (https://easylinuxtipsproject.blogspot.com/p/1.html). I had previously read something here about locking the kernel version (https://easylinuxtipsproject.blogspot.com/p/first-xubuntu.html#ID2.10), and since the problem seemed to be related to the latest kernel installed by the update, I decided to give it a try.

Once again, I restored the Xubuntu and Swap partitions as described above, locked the kernel version as described on the website and then ran Software Update. I got the same update as previously, but this time I noticed that some of the items in the update list were deselected. I ran the updater, which required a reboot, and this time the PC booted normally. The “Advanced options for Ubuntu” menu showed no signs of the troublesome option “Ubuntu, with Linux 4.15.0-48 (generic)”.

So hopefully, problem solved.

It looks like the option to lock the kernel version applies to Ubuntu as well, but the  Easy Linux Tips Project website mentions nothing (yet) about Linux Mint or other Linux distros.

I know there are quite a few AskWoody readers who are experimenting with Linux systems at the moment, so I hope some of the above is helpful.

3 users thanked author for this post.

jburk07, Elly, JohnW

Reply | Quote

Replies

Obviously you have encountered a kernel update that did not work with your system, and it appears that you have handled it well.

Kernel updates always have some risk.

Fortunately you had a backup, as well as found that booting with the older kernel did the trick. Well done!

Locking the kernel for now to prevent kernel updates is probably the only solution for you with that machine. You would probably have to do some further digging to determine why that kernel failed for you. Or you could just stay with what works and not worry about it.

One main difference regarding software updates between the Ubuntu family of distros and Linux Mint, is that Mint offers a “level” system for updates.

Updates marked with level 1-3 are considered as safe, and not likely to cause system wide problems. Level 4 is cautionary for potentially unsafe packages, and level 5 contains potentially dangerous packages, such as kernel updates.

This is a Mint exclusive, where with Mint it is possible to pick your risk tolerance, and you can omit level 4 and 5 updates if you wish, while allowing the other software packages to update. This permits you to avoid risky kernel updates without having to lock anything.

Where if you are running Ubuntu, as you have seen, you can receive everything by default.

Linux Mint Update Manager Explained

This is a decision made by Mint to make it stable and easy to use for novice users. There are probably some arguments to be made against doing it this way, as you may miss out on some security updates, unless you are paying close attention to what has been deferred.

Ubuntu probably is the more secure method, provided you are experienced enough to know to make image backups before updating the kernel!

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

2 users thanked author for this post.

OscarCP, DavidForrest57

Reply | Quote

Many thanks for your response.

You’ve mentioned the Linux “level” system for updates elsewhere, but I haven’t got that far with Linux yet. I will definitely check that out eventually, so thanks for that.

I’ve looked at Linux Mint 19.1 dual booting with Windows 7 on my slightly younger Latitude D620, but only with a view as to which one I’d prefer once my Windows version becomes unsupported by Microsoft. I haven’t paid much attention to LM software updates. Right now, I’m juggling operating systems and their dual-boot combinations like a seasoned circus performer.

For now, I will stay with the locked Xubuntu kernel unless I hit a problem further down the line; “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”! Currently, I’ve got other irons in the fire, so digging into the source of the problem isn’t a priority for me. Maybe it was just this kernel update that caused my problem, and later ones will be okay.

I think this just goes to show that one has to be prepared for things going pear-shaped, whatever operating system one uses. A dependable “get out of jail, free” routine is essential.

1 user thanked author for this post.

JohnW

Reply | Quote

Just for clarification, and to head off any possible confusion down the line by other readers, there is no Linux “level” system.

That is just something that the Mint devs came up with on their own. Mint is a “downstream” derivative of Ubuntu, so basically under the hood that is what you get. But there are some tweaks, and some applications unique to the Mint desktop.

So most of the available Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu/Lubuntu tech help applies equally to Linux Mint. I use Xubuntu as a VM on a slower laptop, but use a Mint VM on my faster desktop. I like both!

And for your purposes, staying with a kernel that works with your hardware makes sense. The most frequent updates to the kernel are to support new hardware, and in your case with an old machine that should never apply.

But another case would be to patch a known kernel based security flaw, which you may want to consider. But as you have seen, always be prepared to roll back if it doesn’t fly!

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidForrest57

Reply | Quote

Yes, as with Windows, it’s advisable to have a sound means of recovery, should updates scupper your Linux system. One of the down-sides with Linux is the greater frequency of updates, compared with Windows. Also, there’s no equivalent to AskWoody’s MS-DEFCON (AFAIK).

With respect to recovery, have you tested Timeshift? I know it comes installed with Linux Mint; would this recover from a problem such as this? I haven’t had happy experiences with Windows System Restore, so I’m reluctant to rely on what appears to be a Linux equivalent, without carrying out extensive testing beforehand.

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

DavidForrest57: I am just beginning to become familiar with Linux Mint, so I’m not sure if “Timeshift” takes a snapshot of the system files, as when one creates a Windows recovery point, or if it images the data files instead, as in an ordinary backup.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

2 users thanked author for this post.

LHiggins, DavidForrest57

Reply | Quote

Never tried Timeshift, but it looks interesting!

How To Backup And Restore Linux With Timeshift

TimeShift – System Restore feature in Linux Mint

I mostly use Linux in a VM these days, so all that is involved in backing up a VM is making a copy of the VM folder. To roll back just copy a previous version of the VM folder. Done!

No backing up and restoring disk partitions or bootloaders required.

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

2 users thanked author for this post.

LHiggins, DavidForrest57

Reply | Quote

Thank you for that link. I hope that having my PC set up to double-boot Mint and Windows 7 will not cause some nasty conflicts. If “Timeshift” creates the equivalent of a restore point for only Linux Mint, regardless of Windows also being on the HD, then it looks like a really good thing to have, and to use. It came pre-installed with my version of Linux Mint (19.1).

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

Timeshift is indeed quite similar to Microsoft’s System Restore, though Timeshift is a lot more configurable.  You can choose where to put your Timeshift data, including on external drives, and you can configure it to include /home data, if you wish.  Just be aware that if you choose that option, any restore operation will roll back not just the system files, but all your personal stuff too, and that’s quite possibly not what you want to do.

Timeshift is a front-end for rsync or btrfs.  I use rsync.  The initial run will copy the files in question to the location indicated, while subsequent runs will only copy new files, and will use symlinks to files that have stayed the same, saving considerable space.

I’ve used Timeshift quite a bit, including restoring.  You can use it even if the GUI won’t start in order to get back to a point where it will.

I believe that the most recent release of Mint has done away with the numbering system for updates, choosing instead to rely in Timeshift, which they have somewhat integrated into the file updater.  Some in the Linux community have taken issue with Mint’s decision to allow users to delay security updates, and they’ve managed to morph that into a generalized (but false) belief that Mint doesn’t care about security.

The Mint update system was based on the same idea as the MS-DEFCON used by this site, and I know Woody’s taken some heat for suggesting people delay “valuable security updates,” since we’re all supposed to install everything we’re told when we’re told to do it.  In their zeal to promote security updates, the pundits have managed to fetishize security updates to the point that you’d think that the moment one of them comes out, your PC is immediately going to be assaulted by miscreants, and that you’re guaranteed to be pwned if you don’t install that update the moment it arrives.

Security updates are important, of course, but they’re only one component of security.  Security is not a quality, binary in nature, that a given piece of software either has or does not have!  By raising security updates to such a high prominence level, people are led to believe that if they’re patched, they are essentially immune to all danger, and they don’t need to observe safe computing principles.  This could well lead people to thoughtlessly engage in risky behavior, confident in their belief that their computers are impervious to harm.  That may seem ridiculous to those of us who understand how all of this works, but things look different to average people who are not techies, but who just want to use their computers.

It’s like that Slick 50 fiasco in the 1990s (as I’ve written about before).  They did a demonstration on one of their commercials where they ran two identical engines that had been drained of oil: one that had previously run regular oil, the other that had been “treated” with Slick 50.  The pure oil engine seized, but the Slick 50 engine kept going.

Those people who know cars understand that this just meant that the Slick 50 engine went longer, and that it would eventually seize up too (especially if any load was to be applied to it).

The message that a lot of non-car people got was that the Slick 50 engine no longer needed oil at all!  While that seems utterly ridiculous to people who know cars, and they’d never even conceive that people could watch that demonstration and reach that conclusion, it’s definitely the message that some people got.  I know specifically of one young woman from my college years, otherwise intelligent (a chemistry major!), who said unequivocally that her car didn’t need oil anymore, as it had been Slick 50’d.  Fortunately, she was set straight before her car’s engine paid the price, but there must have been scores of people across the country/world who were not so fortunate.

Slick 50 got in trouble with the US government, and was exposed as a snake oil, but the questionable nature of their claims (that the teflon particles in the Slick 50, well-known for their anti-stick nature, would somehow coat oily, highly sheared engine parts and bond to them) was a separate problem from leading people to believe that it made engine oil unnecessary.

For someone who knows about the subject matter, it’s often hard to predict what laypeople will “grok” from between the lines when they see a commercial.  If I had been in charge of directing the demonstration (and the resultant commercial), I may have done the same thing!  It may not have occurred to me that people would reach what are (to them) such obviously outlandish conclusions.  The problem is that regular laypeople don’t know the conclusions are outlandish.

This is a problem I try to be aware of when I attempt to help people.  I try to think of the ways that people could misread a situation and cover those bases before it even becomes an issue.  It’s why I oppose this fetishization of security updates… ultimately, I don’t believe it’s a helpful thing to push patching so hard that people think installing updates IS security, rather than just one piece of a complicated whole.

 

Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)

4 users thanked author for this post.

LHiggins, DavidForrest57, Cybertooth, Elly

Reply | Quote

I’ve had some odd experiences with Windows Backup & Restore. I once tried a restore on my Windows 7 PC and it stopped my antivirus from working. Only last week, I had a restore process in Windows 10 that would not complete. Now that I have a reliable means of backup & restore with Macrium Reflect I can afford to experiment with other methods. What I like about the Timeshift utility is that once you’ve created the initial backup subsequent runs are differential (or incremental – I can’t remember which) and much quicker. Having said that, I believe Macrium Reflect offers differential/incremental backups, but I haven’t tried it yet. That’s something else to experiment with.

Ascaris wrote:

Security updates are important, of course, but they’re only one component of security.

I quite agree. It irks me when I see advice about how immediate patching is essential. Hopefully, the shenanigans with April’s patches scuppering Windows 7 systems running 3rd party antivirus will teach people about the dangers of this.

Also, when Microsoft stop support for a particular version of Windows the user is only losing one layer of security. Keeping the browser, antivirus, anti-malware up to date, together with other measures such as using a standard user account for daily tasks rather than an admin account and having a reliable backup & restore method all contribute to security. Windows 7 does not reach “end of life” next year; I used XP without problems for three years after Microsoft ended support.

But I’m drifting off-topic here…

Reply | Quote

Macrium Reflect does everything I need at the moment, so I’m sticking with that!

I’m mostly Windows these days, but I do have Linux dual boot available using secondary drives, rather than extra partitions on my main system drive. Also use VMs in VirtualBox, which are handy if you want side by side sessions of both OS, without having to reboot.

When I ran a dedicated Linux machine for several years, I relied on Clonezilla Live to do backup/restore of my Linux drives/partitions. That worked well, but is a bit tedious.

It’s good to know that booting Macrium rescue media can also do that with Linux, as I find the Macrium user interface a lot more user friendly than Clonezilla, LOL!

If I do set up a dedicated Linux machine again, I may also take a look at Veeam, as that sounds like it might be useful alternative to Macrium.

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

Reply | Quote

I tried Clonezilla as well. Many people swear by it. But there’s all the hassle of setting the language & keyboard in the early stages.

I had a disk with a single bad sector and the backup process via the “Beginner mode” failed because of that. I figured out how to backup using the “Expert mode”, setting the “-rescue” key in the advanced extra parameters. That worked. I became quite acquainted with the process, but it was tedious. The imaging process took quite a while, as well.

Enter Macrium Reflect, and it was no contest when it came to choosing a method to stick with; it was much easier to work with and the imaging process was twice as fast.

I never got to try the Clonezilla restore process.

Incidentally, I created the MR Rescue Media on my Windows 7 PC, but it also runs on my older XP/Xubuntu laptop. It’s funny seeing my XP machine boot with the Windows 7 splash screen when the Rescue Media boots up.

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

I still run an XP on a virtual machine, as it’s the only Windows version that will still run a few old professional graphics applications that I never bothered to upgrade.

It’s 5 years past end of life, and I am down to one AV program that still gets updated signatures, but major browsers are no longer supporting XP.

It seems as of everyone has been dropping support for XP rapidly in the past couple of years. But I plan to keep it “sandboxed” and off the network, even when I can no longer get signature updates.

Anything I install will have been scanned with VirusTotal, and any files opened will have been scanned on my Windows 10 system first, using shared folders.

I think the end of Windows 7 will be a similar slow fade out as well, over the next several years. It won’t be like somebody suddenly hitting an “off” switch.

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidForrest57, OscarCP

Reply | Quote

DavisForrest57 wrote: ” Also, when Microsoft stop support for a particular version of Windows the user is only losing one layer of security. Keeping the browser, antivirus, anti-malware up to date…”

This rises issues that go beyond keeping Windows 7 PCs safe after its official EOL next January.

The overarching question here is: Will the AV still be supported after an OS it was developed for runs out of support and is replaced by a new version, or becomes part of the ash-heap of software history?

Is this a Windows-only problem? How about Linux? (And this question, Davis, is definitely on topic.)

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

In the opinion of many, Linux doesn’t need an AV. But that topic is probably worthy of it’s own thread.

Regarding end-of-life issues for old Linux systems, for a Linux desktop, it’s probably not going to be a huge issue. Perhaps a few inconveniences, as I’m sure there are a few old systems ticking away out there. Especially embedded Linux systems.

But if you are operating a server with open network ports, you definitely would want everything patched and up to date. And if you are running a business on that server, you could be liable for damages if you are breached. So it’s a case by case basis, and not one size for all.

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidForrest57, OscarCP, Microfix

Reply | Quote

In reply to OscarCP, in my post above (#1196514), when I considered myself drifting off-topic, it was because my original post concerned a problem I encountered with a Linux software update, not matters relating to end of support for operating systems.

But you raise some extremely valid points.

The continued use of “unsupported” operating systems is worthy of discussion on numerous levels. One must first consider the definition of “unsupported”. Windows (all versions) is supported by Microsoft and a wide range of third-party software vendors; support may also be provided by the user who has the technical knowhow.

My Dell Latitude D600 runs XP. Microsoft withdrew support for XP in 2014. When Mozilla dropped support for Firefox on XP in 2018 I took that PC offline, even though the Avira Free Antivirus was still being supported. Recently, I started to dual boot XP with Xubuntu, and I use that for internet work on that machine. Five years after XP’s “end of life”, that PC is running XP supported via a Linux OS.

I note also JohnW’s comments concerning EoL issues for old Linux systems; here we must take into account the reduced security threat to these operating systems.

Some people talk about EoL of an OS as if it’s a black or white issue, when really there are many shades of grey.

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

Seems that the Ubuntu 4.15.0-48 kernel specifically does have problems on some hardware – it seems to be graphics-related, and related to the Ubuntu update backporting for the older kernel version.

I have one system running that version and haven’t had problems there, but then again that particular HP hardware model is a bit weird for graphics…

Could always install a different kernel and see what happens. Direct package recommended for testing, such as linux-image-4.18.0-18-generic maybe. If that works, you might switch metapackages for that track (linux-image-generic-hwe-18.04).

Or wait for a fixed version on the regular track, test it, and if it works undo the hold.

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidForrest57

Reply | Quote

There was what seemed to be an addendum to that problematic update a couple of days ago. I didn’t record the details, but having locked the kernel I noticed that some options were deselected from the second update.

I’m wondering if it was some kind of fix?

I may try unlocking the kernel again at some stage, but I’m not in a hurry. I’ve got the Ubuntu 4.15.0-47 kernel, which seems to be fine.

Reply | Quote

Perhaps someone could create a new Thread with this subject as a title instead of continuing the off-topic discussion here  in a thread about “Software Update Problems in Xubuntu.”

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

A good suggestion.

But I will add that the drift off-topic was a blurred line from the original topic specifically about updating, where the “fix” for that particular issue required locking a Linux kernel, and not allowing it to update.

It is easy to see how that can lead to questions about legacy system security, which becomes real if you are not patching your kernel…

So yes, probably the best to continue that discussion elsewhere …

Windows 10 Pro 22H2

1 user thanked author for this post.

Elly

Reply | Quote

Thanks for your post describing your problem as well as how you managed to solve it. I would like to know which of the several “kernel” updates listed in the screen shot did you block from installing, leading to your successful recovery from this problem.

Also: you used Macrium Reflect to restore the Linux partitions to how they were before installing the updates that caused the problem. Did you do it simply because you already had Macrium, or was there another reason for it? I have seen “Veeam” recommended in other Linux threads, here at Woody’s, for recovering the Linux partitions and (if I understood this correctly), also the Windows one, which would make it equivalent, in this respect, to what one can do with Macrium.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

Unfortunately, I don’t have a screenshot showing what was excluded when the software update was run after the kernel was locked.

In the screenshot I provided, you can see there’s not much information concerning the kernel updates beyond 4.15.0, and I didn’t bother looking at the individual technical descriptions; all I remember is that some of the options relating to Linux kernels were deselected. Ultimately, it was the “Ubuntu, with Linux 4.15.0-48” kernel that I kept off my system.

Concerning your question about Macrium Reflect, I have used this because of its ability to back up all partitions, including Linux.

Although I have Macrium Reflect installed on Windows, I always use the bootable USB Rescue Media (which is based on Windows PE). A few weeks ago I tried cloning a Windows-only system from HDD to SSD using Acronis True Image for Crucial; carrying out this procedure from within Windows failed, but when I used the Acronis bootable Rescue Media (which is similar to the Macrium Reflect product) it worked. Consequently, I simply have more faith in carrying out image creation & restoration from outside the active OS.

I have successfully restored whole disks or individual partitions using the Macrium Reflect Rescue Media. In this case I only restored the Linux partitions, without touching the Windows partition.

I have no experience of Veeam, but from what I have read, it seems to do the same job as Macrium Reflect.

2 users thanked author for this post.

jburk07, OscarCP

Reply | Quote

DavidForrest57:

Thank you for your detailed answer.

Just to make sure I understand one important point in it: if I read you correctly, you are definitely sure that you did block the update to the actual Linux kernel, which I take it is the meaning of the name of the update in question: “Ubuntu, with Linux 4.15.0-48 “. Right?

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

I locked the kernel using the Terminal command described on the Easy Linux Tips Project website (follow the link in my original post). After I did that, the deselected items in the software update were set by the update process itself. I didn’t deselect anything myself.

Following the software update and subsequent reboot, the “Ubuntu, with Linux 4.15.0-48” option wasn’t available in the advanced options boot menu. I didn’t specifically block this kernel version; all kernel updates will be blocked unless I unblock them as described in the link.

2 users thanked author for this post.

OscarCP, JohnW

Reply | Quote

DavidForrest57 wrote:

I locked the kernel using the Terminal command described on the Easy Linux Tips Project website (follow the link in my original post). After I did that, the deselected items in the software update were set by the update process itself. I didn’t deselect anything myself.

Following the software update and subsequent reboot, the “Ubuntu, with Linux 4.15.0-48” option wasn’t available in the advanced options boot menu. I didn’t specifically block this kernel version; all kernel updates will be blocked unless I unblock them as described in the link.

Yeah, I understand the “apt-mark hold” commands were:

sudo apt-mark hold “linux-generic*” “linux-headers-generic*” “linux-image-generic*” “linux-signed-generic*” “linux-signed-image-generic*” linux-libc-dev

… that means “hold current installed version” on any of the listed packages or patterns. Won’t take for those that don’t match a currently installed package.

This notably doesn’t do much on its own if you happen to be on a non-generic kernel, such as lowlatency. (My 18.04 system here is currently running 4.18.0-18-lowlatency, for example.)

Now the restore from backup probably was technically a bit of overkill, and restoring the swap partition even more so because the only situation when that has anything reused after reboot is hibernation… but at least it works.

The minimal procedure probably would’ve been something like,
1) boot to known-working previous kernel (4.15.0-47)
2) “sudo apt-get install linux-image-generic=4.15.0.47.49”
(specify exact version of the metapackage, it’ll complain about downgrading but since that’s exactly what you’re doing… note, you do need to know which specific version to install, one way to get a list of those is “apt-cache search –full linux-image-generic”)
3) “sudo apt-mark hold linux-image-generic”
(hold just what is needed to be held)
4) “sudo apt-get remove linux-image-4.15.0-48-generic”
(remove the non-working direct package)

That should leave you with the metapackage held at the 4.15.0-47 version, and that in turn depends on the direct 4.15.0-47 package.

And the Linux updates *do* include quite a bit of identity data, it’s just that some of the “friendly” tools don’t show that by default. On the command line you can get this with “apt-cache show” and various kinds of dpkg-query commands, I wouldn’t know how the GUI tools can be made to do that.

2 users thanked author for this post.

OscarCP, DavidForrest57

Reply | Quote

mn– wrote:

Now the restore from backup probably was technically a bit of overkill, and restoring the swap partition even more so because the only situation when that has anything reused after reboot is hibernation… but at least it works.

Agreed. But as you say, it works. I don’t know enough about the Linux command line syntax. I’m pretty much reliant on finding solutions online and entering commands with copy/paste!

Reply | Quote