Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm suffering from a kernel bug in a production environment. The problem isn't causing a complete outage, but it's degrading service.

These are soft lockups.

I'd like to try a newer kernel, however Squeeze only has, but kernel.org has I've compiled from source in the past, but should this really be necessary? I'd really rather not put other admins through manual tracking of security bugs.

Backports seems to no longer have 2.6 kernels, they're all 3.2. 3.2 is a PITA to install because it pulls in a mountain of dependencies. E.g., linux-base > 3


Those dependencies could break my abilty to boot back in 2.6, cutting out my backout plan and potentially leading to a very long production outage.

There are references online of backports having a newer 2.6.32 kernel. Where did they go?


share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Squeeze currently has 2.6.32-59. For details have a look at the chanelog entry for 2.6.32-42.

What exactly is your problem and why do you think upgrading the kernel may help? As you can always downgrade packages there should be no problem using the newest Linux kernel in backports.

share|improve this answer
It looks like the Debian kernel versions threw me for a loop. Like you say, it sounds like 2.6.32-42 of the Debian package contains's patches. See unix.stackexchange.com/questions/39621/… for what I'm trying to solve. – mgjk Jun 6 '12 at 14:13

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.