linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function ,take2

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]

Message-ID: <47171ED9.7010907@ah.jp.nec.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:52:41 +0900
From:	Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@...jp.nec.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	vgoyal@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	k-miyoshi@...jp.nec.com, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	Bernhard Walle <bwalle@...e.de>, Keith Owens <kaos@....com.au>,
	kdb@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] add new notifier function ,take2

Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 12:06:51AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:45:08 +0900 Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
>> I can sort-of see what this is doing.  Runtime-definable management of
>> which notifier functions will be called on a panic?  Or maybe I
>> misunderstood.
>>
>> But even if I did understand, I don't understand why Linux needs this
>> feature - what are the use cases, what is the value to our users?
>>
>> Can you please flesh that information out a bit more?
>>
>
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Takenori wants to make kdb and kdump co-exist. Currently after panic()
> panic_notifier_list is not executed if kdump is configured. Before list
> is executed, system will boot into second kernel to capture the dump. Hence
> if even if kdb was registered on panic_notifier_list, it will never get
> a chance to run.

Yes, it is true. But I don't mind only kdb and kdump co-exist.

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 that users can change
the order. Priority value in notifier blocks are hardcoded. If users want to
change list order, they have to rebuild kernel. I think it is very unhappy.

This is our discussion.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/797220?do=post_view_threaded#797220

In addition, we can use new notifier function to reboot_notifier, die_chain
if users want to use.

>> The patches are somewhat wordwrapped - please check your email client
>> configuration, thanks.

Sorry, I'll resend.

Thanks,
  Takenori
 
-
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/