Hello Lorenzo,
In a previuos post I can see some warnings about
"... many kernel issues
with the AX25 stack and newer kernels that cause the kernel to simply lock,
panic, and other nasties ..." and so the downgrade advice.
In some rare cases, this is correct. Most of the time, the issues
experienced are less catastrophic but the overall packet system is still
unusable. Examples include:
- In an AX.25 connected session (classic packet), the remote user
disconnects but the local AX.25 socket is left open forever. At that
point, that remote user's CALLSIGN+SSID will never be able to reconnect.
- In AX.25 unconnected packets (APRS, etc), there are failures to
send packets in specific scenarios
- There are more examples I can share if you're interested
On the other hand I can see AX25 kernel patch mailing
list with some recent
kernel little patches about AX25 ... someone know the real recent kernels
conditions?
These kernel maintainers are making changes to adopt newer coding styles
for existing routines and their efforts span multiple areas of the
kernel. These patches are usually submitted in very large swaths of
code areas and some include the packet radio section. I've generally
observed these people aren't HAMs and aren't unit testing or regression
testing their patched code. The mere fact that code compiles justifies
the patch in their minds which is terrible IMHO. Other maintainers have
created patches but put in the comments that this change isn't complete
and shouldn't be committed yet but they submit the patch anyway. The
designated AX.25 kernel maintainers haven't been involved in years now
and the the upstream branch maintainers simply accept the patches anyway
assuming more patches are on their way but they never come. I've
personally tried to find out where some sort of packet unit testing
could be put into the Linux development process but I've been unable to
get anyone to respond. The closest I've found to all this is the system
created by Intel but again, I've been unable to find anyone that will
tell me how to author unit tests and get them into their CD pipeline.
It is absolutely necessary to downgrade from current
stable 4.14.98 to
previous 4.1.21 (for example ...)? In this case, is there a more recent
"good" downgrade kernel?
Nope. Bernard F6BVP did a lot of bisecting and testing work until he
found that kernel version. More and more kernel changes have come
through the system now so it's not just a matter of backing out those
changes. The backouts would need to be ported to be compatible with the
new state of the code.
It is better to use "Jessie" instead of
"Stretch" distro?
No. The issues we've observed is only in the kernel and the userland
AX.25 packages.
Again about AX25 packages AX.25 Apps, AX.25 Tools,
AX.25 Library: It is
always the best choise to recompile and use VE7FET packages (thanks to Lee
VE7FET for bugs fixed and reorganizing) instead of official repository
(APT) ?
It's a pity that there is no way to have a single good source ...
This is still my observed experience. The Official AX25 repos have made
some progress but that team continues to refuse important fixes. Some
of those refusals might be legitimate on some technical level (maybe
their are better ways of getting the same change done) but no attempts
by those maintainers are made to rectify the issues and commit them. As
such, we fortunately have the VE7FET repo which takes those fixes which
repairs the various functionality, and we get a reliable packet solution.
I've been personally trying to recruit kernel people to correct these
issues for many years now but I cannot report any real progress. I
believe we are approaching the point where the in-kernel AX.25 support
will completely break At that point, we will need to move to a AX.25
userland solution to continue using Linux at all. This would be
something along the lines of all Linux applications would need to get
their packet support via something AGW API calls, TCP KISS, etc. If
that happens, we will essentially loose all the powerful built-in packet
routing abilities of the Linux kernel. This would be very sad but then
we could return to using current modern and secure kernels.
If anyone believes they can help on this effort to repair the kernel or
have in's to other kernel developers who might be willing to help,
please send them my email address. I have a fairly detailed set of
emails containing various history of the key commits that broke things
which might help that person correct those changes and get us back on track.
--David
KI6ZHD