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: <2ea1731b0911170445x13225c19w797388d2211de2d9@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:45:02 +0100
From:	Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
To:	dedekind1@...il.com
Cc:	Simon Kagstrom <simon.kagstrom@...insight.net>,
	David VomLehn <dvomlehn@...co.com>,
	linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dwm2@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mpm@...enic.com,
	paul.gortmaker@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] panic-note: Annotation from user space for panics

2009/11/17 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>:
> Take a look at my mails where I describe different complications we have
> in our system. We really want to have an OOPS/panic + our environment
> stuff to go together, at once. This makes things so much simpler.
>
> Really, what is the problem providing this trivial panic-note
> capability, where user-space can give the kernel a small buffer, and ask
> the kernel to print this buffer at the oops/panic time. Very simple and
> elegant, and just solves the problem.
>
> Why perversions with time-stamps, separate storages are needed?
>
> IOW, you suggest a complicated approach, and demand explaining why we do
> not go for it. Simply because it is unnecessarily complex.

I don't think it's a complicated approach we are talking of a system
log like syslog with a temporal information, nothing more.

> This patch solves the problem gracefully, and I'd rather demand you to point what
> is the technical problem with the patches.
>

Simply because I think that we should avoid to include in the kernel
things we can do in a simply way at user space level. I think this
patch is well done but it's one of the patches that are solutions "for
embedded only", but it's only my opinion.

Marco
--
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/