New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Backing up current initrd can fill up partitions #2
Comments
|
Ideally old initrds for still installed kernels should be kept around. I'm fine accepting a cleanup patch that saves those. |
|
Backup files could be cleared in update-initramfs's delete function, too. |
|
@scaronni Thanks your code work. |
|
This is actually incorrect as the remove_initrd_backup command runs before the dkms remove command which actually makes the .old-dkms file. |
|
Why does it make a .old-dkms file when it runs dkms remove? |
|
Because do_uninstall calls make_initrd and dkms, as far as I can tell, doesn't know the kernel is scheduled for removal just that the module is being removed so it remakes the initrd even though its getting removed. |
|
Well, wouldn't it be better to tell make_initrd that kernel is being removed so there is no need to create a backup? |
|
In light of the above comments and the fact that this still plagues my Linux boxen, can we get this issue re-opened until a more full patch is in place? Thanks. |
According to: https://github.com/dell-oss/dkms/blob/master/dkms#L267-L283
An old initrd is saved with the "old-dkms" suffix at every rebuild, to revert to the previous initrd in case of problems. This is fine, but it can lead to a full /boot partition after a few update, as old initrd images are never deleted (ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1251602).
What is the best approach here? Is it ok if I create a patch that deletes all "old-dkms" images prior to starting a new initird build? If a new initird build is triggered, this basically means that the user is updating the kernel or the module, and in both cases it ensures us that the "current boot" is fine and there is no need to revert.
What do you think?
Thanks,
--Simone
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: