5

I built a custom Linux "recovery-cd" image that consists of a compressed initrd and boots via bcdedit (like Ubuntu Wubi) instead of a physical CD. It has various recovery tools for partition editing, antivirus, etc.

Now I have to upgrade the kernel and modules to make it support UEFI, so it can boot in a SecureBoot-enabled machine (I'm using a signed grubx64.efi for booting).

My image is based on TinyCore Linux 3.x, which added UEFI support (linux 3.10) in the latest 5.x versions. I replaced the 2.6.32 kernel and modules with 3.10 and things appear to work. But TinyCore 3.x has glibc 2.11, while 5.x has glibc 2.17.

My question is, how do I make sure there are no incompatibilities between the new kernel and older user apps/libs. I am looking out for removed syscalls and features in all kernel release notes between 2.6.32 and 3.10, but what would a more thorough approach be ? Am I just asking for trouble by doing this ?

migrated from serverfault.com Aug 6 '13 at 11:59

This question came from our site for system and network administrators.

  • It is a bad idea. Something is bound to break and the failure will be subtle or odd. Probably fine within the major kernel version but from 2.6.x to 3.x I would not trust it. – Sean Perry Dec 17 '13 at 23:59
2

Such a major version change is bound to cause failures in apps and libs. There are quite a lot of changes between the two versions you mentioned. Usually it is ok to jump within sub-versions, e.g. 2.6.32 to 2.6.39. Jumping all the way from 2.6.x to 3.x is not recommended.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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