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: <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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists