[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1243355634.29250.331.camel@psmith-ubeta.netezza.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:33:54 -0400
From: Paul Smith <paul@...-scientist.net>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.27.24] Kernel coredump to a pipe is failing
Sorry for not following up to my previous message to get the threading
headers correct: the original is on another system I don't have access
to and I can't find a way to reply from any of the web archived
versions. Anyway, this is a link to the original FYI:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124299629611706
In that post I observed that my short cores were being caused by
dump_write() returning 0; taking another look at dump_write():
static int dump_write(struct file *file, const void *addr, int nr)
{
return file->f_op->write(file, addr, nr, &file->f_pos) == nr;
}
If the write operation returns an error of any kind, or it fails to
write the complete set of bytes (nr here is always PAGE_SIZE, as this
function is called when it fails), then dump_write() returns 0 and we
get a short core.
So I annotated dump_write() to printk() if this operation is false, and
I get:
file ffff8803b95d0180: dump_write: -512 < 4096
Well, -512 is ERESTARTSYS. That, to me, seems like a reasonable error
code to get when we're trying to dump core to a pipe. Yes? No?
Shouldn't we be doing some kind of error handling here, at least for
basic things like signals? Should a process that's dumping core be set
to ignore signals? Should dump_write() try again on ERESTARTSYS?
Any advice or comments would be greatly appreciated!
--
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