Is the Linux kernel version the same or newer? There is a critical privilege escalation vulnerability in most of the 6.x kernels and I was hoping there would be a newer minor version of the kernel with the fix.
The latest 25.10.3 reports the same a previous versions
Linux truenas 6.12.33-production+truenas #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mon Apr 13 19:09:57 UTC 2026 x86_64 GNU/Linux
truenas_admin@truenas[~]$ ```25.10.1 is still General release. It seems General skipped 25.10.2 entirely.
Iâd actually like to upgrade to 25.10.3 given the quantity of bug fixes and stay there for a while, but I hesitate to upgrade while itâs still marked âEarly Adopter.â
@HoneyBadger , Is 25.10.3 expected to hit General, or will the General train be waiting for 26.04?
I think itâs worth opening a Jira ticket on this, especially if thereâs already a patched version of the 6.12.x kernel.
If you want the update that 25.10.3 brings, feel free to update but do not do any more updates until you see the option to select General in the release train. 25.10.2 series had too may issue to get to General and, hopefully, this release wonât have many problems and will get General status in a few weeks.
A JIRA ticket may be a good idea but I also expect TrueNAS is watching upstream Debian for any security related issues, also.
1 Like
Thanks. I wasnât aware of the blocking issues with 25.10.2.
Iâll stick on 25.10.1 for now and check in a month or so. 
Another eventful update here.
Which event then?
Hmm⌠You meant âun-â. 
1 Like
There have been over 10,000 âuneventfulâ updates over the last few days. TrueNAS 25.10.3 is operating as expected and will probably graduate to âGeneralâ fairly quickly.
2 Likes
Sure. Otherwise my post would contain more text.
1 Like
updated. no explosions to report (that i know of 
)
*already backed up before hand, so braver than usual 
5 Likes
it is possible there is still a bug, while my AD users are populating fine the groups are not populating. I checked via wbinfo -g and they show fine over the shell, but the GUI is not populating my AD groups. Anyone else having this issue in 12.10.3?
No other reports Iâve seen.
Suggest you do a write-up in General channel and look for config issues.
If no luck, please add a link here.
If no-one can suggest a resolution⌠then report a bug.
Hi @Captain_Morgan , I think I am good âŚthis was done by design I think
1 Like
Any time you have a case where you have a mismatch between groups in wbinfo output and getent output (where former has things latter doesnât), itâs related to ID mapping. ALL unix attributes must be provided in some form in order for users / groups to surface via the NSS layer in unix. Typically we generate these algorithmically (RID backend), but youâre using idmap_ad (which means youâre using RFC2307 or MS-SFU attributes stored in your AD LDAP schema). The situation you described is typical for case where either (1) truenas is not configured in a way where it can find the attributes in your domain or (2) your domain has not provisioned the attributes correctly.
As Iâve mentioned before in various posts and bug tickets, we go far enough in investigation to be satisfied that the implementation works as designed. Further investigation of peopleâs directory services environments (AD, LDAP, FreeIPA) to debug their exact domain configuration would be more akin to an enterprise support engagement than a bug investigation so bugtracker help usually hard-stops at that point.
5 Likes
So I was on 25.10.1:
- with the âgeneralâ profile selected, 25.10.3 did not show up - there was no update available
- I switched to âearly adopterâ and 25.10.3 showed up
- I did the Update and now I am on 25.10.3, but why canât I switch to âGeneralâ now? O.o
1 Like
Because 25.10.3 hasnât been promoted to general yet. Wait until that is announced in the forum and then you can switch
3 Likes
So you need to be on a version that is in the general train to be able to switch to the general train?
That seems a bit odd.
Why not allow users to switch the updater to âGeneralâ regradless of the version they are currently on?
4 Likes
So it was working as intended.
as intendedâŚ
And as intended. The current design is to not show updates until they have been verified and promoted to your selected profile and also to prevent mismatches where you are running an Early Adopter version while your profile says General.
While there are arguments to be made around improving the system, like maybe having a way to select General which would lock updates until the next General version with a warning that the current installed version does not meet the selected profile, the base behavior is that if you are on the General profile youâre not supposed to get the option to update until that next version has been validated. That worked until you went around it.
3 Likes
Yup, in the state that my system is now I would like to be able to switch to âGeneralâ which I think would not cause any harm and I get the system to stop alerting me of early adopter builds I do not intend to upgrade to (i.e. the current Beta).
The obvious counterargument being that you were already in that state and chose to update anyway. Itâs worth thinking about, but it does seem like there might be a fine line between reducing friction there and making it so easy to bypass the profile recommendation that it defeats the whole purpose.