linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] panic-note: Annotation from user space for panics

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: <20091112220925.GC28349@dvomlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net>
Date:	Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:09:25 -0500
From:	David VomLehn <dvomlehn@...co.com>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Cc:	linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dwm2@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mpm@...enic.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] panic-note: Annotation from user space for panics

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 02:50:41PM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> David VomLehn wrote:
>> Allows annotation of panics to include platform information. It's no big
>> deal to collect information, but way helpful when you are collecting
>> failure reports from a eventual base of millions of systems deployed in
>> other people's homes.
...
> Why hook into panic() directly like this, vs. using the panic
> notifier list? If you use that, and then put the data handling
> magic that you need into your own kernel module that knows how
> to interface with the reporting apps that you have, you can
> do the whole thing without having to alter existing code, I think.

I agree--a panic notifier list is probably a better approach.

David VL
--
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/