[Pkg-nagios-devel] Bug#792412: Bug#792412: please include check_deb_kernel_version

[Jan Wagner]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512



Am 14.07.15 um 18:45 schrieb Tomas Pospisek:
> The problem is that it actually doesn't do that:

But t is intended to do so:

# head -4 /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_running_kernel
#!/bin/bash

# Check if the running kernel has the same version string as the on-disk
# kernel image.

> First machine:
> 
> # apt-get install --no-install-recommends nagios-plugins-contrib 
> ... # /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_running_kernel UNKNOWN: Failed
> to get a version string from image 
> /boot/vmlinuz-3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64
> 
> True, this is not the same problem as reported but:
> 
> Second machine:
> 
> # apt-get install --no-install-recommends nagios-plugins-contrib 
> ... # /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_running_kernel OK: Running
> kernel matches on disk image: [Linux version 3.13.0-43-generic
> (buildd at tipua) (gcc version 4.8.2 (Ubuntu 4.8.2-19ubuntu1) )
> #72-Ubuntu SMP Mon Dec 8 19:35:06 UTC 2014]
> 
> However:
> 
> # ls /boot/vm* /boot/vmlinuz-3.13.0-43-generic
> /boot/vmlinuz-3.13.0-57-generic
> 
> Note: the running kernel < the latest installed kernel -> this
> machine should be rebooted
> 
> Sure this is an Ubuntu machine, but AFAIK this specific problem is 
> identical over Debian/Ubuntu so there no difference here, but..
> 
> Unfortunately I don't have a machine at hand that has a newer
> kernel and is Debian, but as far as I can see from looking at the
> sources of check_running_kernel, it does *not check* whether
> there's a newer kernel installed that the one that is running.
> 
> In case you have such a case, could you please check?

CRITICAL - *"WARNING: Kernel needs upgrade [linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64
!= linux-image-3.2.0-4-amd64]"

However .. if I Run that check on commandline, it reports:

OK: Running kernel matches on disk image: [Linux version 3.2.0-4-amd64
(debian-kernel at lists.debian.org) (gcc version 4.6.3 (Debian 4.6.3-14)
) #1 SMP Debian 3.2.65-1+deb7u2]

Which is indeed not the correct behaviour.

> Should I reopen the bug report?

You opened this bug for including a new check, which should be
possible with an existing one. So this bug is invalid in the first place
.

There is open #780098 which reports a problem with this plugin, but it
looks like it is a different one.

So a solution would be to fix the existing plugin to work as expected
(and promised by it). This should be handled in a seperate bugreport.

With kind regards, Jan.
- -- 
Never write mail to <waja at spamfalle.info>, you have been warned!
- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GIT d-- s+: a C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E--- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V-
PS PE Y++
PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI D+ G++ e++ h---- r+++ y++++
- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
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=heyi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----