[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A65598D.7020808@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:00:45 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Brayan Arraes <brayan@...k.com.br>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysrq, kdump: fix regression, revert "simplify sysrq-c
handler"
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> writes:
>
>> 1) This fix breaks our tools.
>> This fix changes the ABI. panic_on_oops is default 0,
>> and a lots system do not specify the boot option "panic",
>> thus, Sysrq-c will not cause CrashDump(Kdump) as expected.
>
> How does it break your tools?
Sysrq-c is known for causing a CrashDump.
This fix make Sysrq-c just causing an oops.
An oops in process context just kills current task and
does nothing. (panic_on_oops=0)
Why we let a cleanup patch changes the kernel behavior so much?
>
>> 2) When CONFIG_KEXEC=n, Sysrq-c should become an invalid
>> command like Sysrq-D(CONFIG_LOCKDEP, show-all-locks).
>> But this fix makes it a valid command and let it do a
>> hazard thing: cause a page fault(NULL dereference) in kernel.
>>
>> So, we revert this fix.
>
> The idea was to extend sysrq-d to also be a way of testing NULL
> pointer dereferences. How is that a bad idea?
>
When CONFIG_KEXEC=n, Crashdump is not available,
Sysrq-c should become an invalid command.
--
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