linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <470B3008.9040003@ah.jp.nec.com>
Date:	Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:38:48 +0900
From:	Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@...jp.nec.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vgoyal@...ibm.com,
	k-miyoshi@...jp.nec.com, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de>, Keith Owens <kaos@....com.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kdb@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@...jp.nec.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> These patches add new notifier function and implement it to panic_notifier_list.
>> We used the hardcoded notifier chain so far, but it was not flexible. New
>> notifier is very flexible, because user can change a list of order by debugfs.
> 
> How is the lack of flexibility a problem?
> Specifics please.

Please read this again.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/797220?do=post_view_threaded#797220

Keith Owen said,

> My stance is that _all_ the RAS tools (kdb, kgdb, nlkd, netdump, lkcd,
> crash, kdump etc.) should be using a common interface that safely puts
> the entire system in a stopped state and saves the state of each cpu.
> Then each tool can do what it likes, instead of every RAS tool doing
> its own thing and they all conflict with each other, which is why this
> thread started.
> 
> It is not the kernel's job to decide which RAS tool runs first, second
> etc., it is the user's decision to set that policy. Different sites
> will want different orders, some will say "go straight to kdump", other
> sites will want to invoke a debugger first. Sites must be able to
> define that policy, but we hard code the policy into the kernel. 

I agreed with him and I made new notifier function.

> 
> My impression is that the purpose of this patchset is to build
> infrastructure to sort out a conflict between kdb and the kexec code,
> which it does not do, and it can not do if it does not own up to
> it's real purpose.

My motivation does not change. But I don't think kdump have to use notifer.
I want to resolve this adopting the way which satisfy all users.

Thanks,

Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@...jp.nec.com>
-
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/