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: <200710212200.04361.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:00:03 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 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

On Thursday 18 October 2007 18:52, Takenori Nagano wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:

> > > 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.

Is it possible to use a single bit of common code and a single
notifier for these things? Or is it too difficult?

One thing I'd suggest is not to use debugfs, if it is going to
be a useful end-user feature.
-
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/