linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sysrq, kdump: fix regression, revert "simplify sysrq-c handler"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:10:49 -0400
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Brayan Arraes <brayan@...k.com.br>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ken'ichi Ohmichi <oomichi@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysrq, kdump: fix regression, revert "simplify sysrq-c
	handler"

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:01:29AM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> Neil Horman wrote:
> > None of this answers Erics question, what is it that you could do before, that
> > you couldn't do now?
> 
> One is, as Ohmichi-san pointed, triggering kdump via echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger.
> 
> In contrast to oops via SysRq-c from keyboard interrupt which results in
> panic due to in_interrupt(), oops via echo-c will not become panic unless
> panic_on_oops.
> 
> So in other words, we could expect same effect in both of echo-c and SysRq-c
> before, but now we cannot because it depends on the panic_on_oops.
> Isn't it a regression?
> 
Only if you blindly consider a change in behavior to be a regression.  consider
that previously executing a sysrq-c did the same thing if you did a echo c >
/proc/sysrq-trigger on a keyboard sysrq-c, but did different things based on
weather or not your had a kexec kernel loaded.

> Whether kdump should be executed on oops (which is not panic) or not is a
> separate thing.
> 
> > There are reasons to want to have a convenient way to
> > crash the kernel, other than to test kdump (several distributions have augmented
> > sysrq-c to do this for some time to test other previous dump mechanisms and
> > features), so while its not been upstream, saying that its well known to test
> > kdump without causing an oops is a bit of a misleading statement.
> 
> Let make me sure the difference between 'crash', 'oops', and 'panic'.
> At least 'oops' is not panic, as is obvious from the name of panic_on_oops.
> And it seems you are using 'crash' and 'oops' in mixture.
> 
I'm perfectly well aware of the difference, I just assert theres value to having
sysrq-c be able to test both paths, especially given that we already have the
sysrq-c sysctl available to toggle behavior for just this case.

> If you mean 'crash' as 'panic', my complaint is echo-c does not panic while
> SysRq-c does panic.  So if possible I'd like to suggest a change like:
>
See above, I think theres value to having sysrq-c be able to do both, although I
agree the method by which it triggers both is a bit muddled.
 
>  static void sysrq_handle_crash(int key, struct tty_struct *tty)
>  {
> -	char *killer = NULL;
> -	*killer = 1;
> +	panic("SysRq-triggered panic!\n");
>  }
> 
Well, this removes the ability from sysrq-c to test the oops handling path, but
I suppose it does buy us consistent behavior between the keyboard and proc
interfaces, which is likely more important.  I can agree to that.  Perhaps we
can create another sysctl to test the oops path later.

> I agree that causing a real crash(panic) is better way to test crashdump than
> calling the entry function of the crashdump directly, and also that opening
> the path for other dump mechanisms is welcomed.
>  
Ok, so we're in line there :)

> > It seems to
> > me that right now your major complaint is that the documentation is out of date,
> > and you're having to do things slightly differently to get the same behavioral
> > results.  Would it solve your issue, if we simply updated the documentation to
> > illustrate how it works now?
> 
> Of course the documentation should be updated asap.
> But I think the major complaint is about a difference in the behaviors of SysRq-c
> and "echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger".
> 
Ok, I can agree with that.  I'd support a change like what you have above to
bring the keyboard and proc interface behavior in line.

Regards
Neil


> 
> Thanks,
> H.Seto
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/