Synology NAS container O_TMPFILE fallback support

Arunas arunas at
Sun Nov 26 00:17:14 CET 2023

Thank you for reply Thomas! 

> On 2023-11-25, at 11:01, Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht at> wrote:
> Hello,
> Am 24/11/2023 um 19:15 schrieb Arunas:
>> as somebody noticed or not, but PBS starting 2.1x stopped working on
>> Synology NAS machines earlier that 2020 or even newer models which use
>> 3.1.1 kernel.
> That kernel went EOL quite exactly 10 years ago, oof...
>> I would like to ask community and/or development to include this or
>> similar patch to support very reliable NAS machines….
> Yeah the argument to reduce electronic waste is the only thing that
> makes me not reject this immediately..
>> Please see:
>> the file: versions/v2.1.5/server/proxmox~fallback-o_tmpfile.patch
>> I am long runner of Synology NAS machines, and even DS1819+ which is
>> very capable NAS, still use the 3.1.1 kernel.
> Well, with a boatload of security holes I guess, or do you get frequent
> kernel updates with latest known security holes fixed?
> As we'd like to avoid making life for ransomware attackers even easier..
> I mean the DS1819+ got released in 2018, still shipping with a kernel
> released 7 years before that (2011) is IMO rather irresponsible..
> Even the 4.14 kernel, back then a year old, would have had enough time
> to ripe and ensure that it works perfectly, after all they only have to
> support a very selected set of hardware.

Actually what they do, is they maintain the chosen kernel till end of life of the product. The whole system is custom build for Synology devices.
I use some DS1815+ devices (yes, from 2014!), which are great NAS hardware and still get security updates, and latest one was on 2023-06-05:

The system it self is very reliable and quite secure, as probably millions of these devices are working online worldwide.

At least they themselves advertise as second largest in NAS market share

On consumer market, numbers are even larger, it seems they are number 1:

Still, like large corporate, they are VERY unagile and not flexible. 

> Did you ask Synology for providing a newer kernel version?
> After all those are the ones you gave money for this machine, and
> there's no real excuse to not provide newer kernels (at least for a few
> years). As I'm not exactly jumping for joy at the thought of having
> to do work just because some proprietary company doesn't wants to do
> their basic homework.

The main “issue” with this company OS vision, is that device will have same base kernel version during whole its life. Even when I did major DSM 6 to DSM 7 upgrade, kernel stayed the same - 3.1.1 and that was true both for DS1815+ and for DS1819+

It was big surprise for me, but going deeper into DSM OS, you see, that they build kernel modules themselves, do back porting of features and security patches, and looks like system is so tuned, that doing major change will require total rewriting of whole OS.

> We'll evaluate this, but cannot promise anything, from only a quick
> check the patch would need some cleaning up, and a in-depth check to
> ensure it doesn't introduce some subtle bug we are then responsible for.
> Regards,
> Thomas

Thank you very much, any support is appreciated! I own around 100TB of storage on Synology NAS, which could serve on purpose. Also many cudos for green planet reason mentioning :) I strongly support the idea of less waist and recycling.

Best Regards,

More information about the pve-devel mailing list