We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
tamird@pc:~/src$ cat /proc/sys/kernel/osrelease 6.2.0-24-generic tamird@pc:~/src$ cat /proc/version_signature Ubuntu 6.2.0-24.24-generic 6.2.12
Per this article the upstream kernel version is the rightmost field (so 6.2.12 in my case) while /proc/sys/kernel/osrelease reports 6.2.0.
/proc/sys/kernel/osrelease
6.2.0
There are possibly some gotchas with Debian as well -- I'm not sure if there's a universal way to get this information right for all distros.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Looks like there's some code in libbpf that tries to get this right.
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/3f01e9fed8454dcd89727016c3e5b2fbb8f8e50c/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c#L21-L101
Sorry, something went wrong.
Good info, thanks. Adding a similar check for ubuntu's version_signature sounds like the right thing to do here.
version_signature
Also our procfs tests don't actually compare KernelVersion::current() to the output of uname, which should be fixed too
KernelVersion::current()
uname
There's also this fun detail: torvalds/linux@a256aac
TL;DR kernel 4.19.x where x >= 222 lies but it's not clear that all facilities report the same version.
No branches or pull requests
Per this article the upstream kernel version is the rightmost field (so 6.2.12 in my case) while
/proc/sys/kernel/osrelease
reports6.2.0
.There are possibly some gotchas with Debian as well -- I'm not sure if there's a universal way to get this information right for all distros.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: