| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070726162134.GA13880@suse.de> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:21:34 +0200 From: Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de> To: kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [patch] add kdump_after_notifier * Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de> [2007-07-26 18:14]: > * Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...ibm.com> [2007-07-26 17:54]: > > > > That's true. Its not mainline. We had similar discussion in the past > > also. I think we should allow only audited code to be run after panic(). > > Leaving it open to modules or unaudited code makes this solution > > something like LKCD where whole lot of code used to run after the crash, > > hence was unreliable. > > > > If KDB goes mainline, then I think it is not a bad idea to call debugger > > first (if it is enabled) and then one can trigger crash dump from inside > > the debugger. > > Well, after thinking again about this, I think the best solution would > to call kdump from KDB with a command as it was done by LKCD. Ok, but that doesn't solve the problem (it would solve the opposite problem). My question is: Why cannot kdump use the notifier call chain? Wouldn't this simplify things in general, apart from KDB. Not talking about the priority of kdump now ... Thanks, Bernhard - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists