[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <987664A83D2D224EAE907B061CE93D5301A7A60074@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:27:43 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linux Edac Mailing List <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC 2/2] events/hw_event: Create a Hardware Anomaly
Report Mechanism (HARM)
> A INT13 persistent data saving will probably be too hard to implement for
> all kind of storages. So, it will probably need lots of hack in order to
> work. Also, some hardware may even not have any local hard disk. Not sure
> if it is worth to spend time on it.
Linus was pretty clear that he didn't like the idea when
it came up a few weeks ago in the:
[PATCH 0/2][concept RFC] x86: BIOS-save kernel log to disk upon panic
thread.
Linus ranted:
> Quite frankly, I'm not likely to _ever_ merge anything like this.
>
> Over the years, many people have tried to write things to disk on
> oops. I refuse to take it. No way in hell do I want the situation of
> "the system is screwed, so let's overwrite the disk" to be something
> the kernel I release might do. It's crazy. That disk is a lot more
> important than the kernel, and overwriting it when we might have
> serious memory corruption issues or something is not a thing I feel is
> appropriate.
I agree with him - writing to disk from a known broken kernel (using
a probably buggy BIOS) is a disaster waiting to happen to somebody's
disk.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists