[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120229105235.GH24600@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:52:35 +0200
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: notify host when guest paniced
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:48:57PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/29/2012 12:44 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, crash can be so severe that it is not even detected by a kernel
> > > > itself, so not OOPS message even printed. But in most cases if kernel is
> > > > functional enough to print OOPS it is functional enough to call single
> > > > hypercall instruction.
> > >
> > > Why not print the oops to virtio-serial? Or even just a regular serial
> > > port? That's what bare metal does.
> > >
> > The more interface is complex the more chances it will fail during
> > panic. Regular serial is likely more reliable than virtio-serial.
> > Hypercall is likely more reliable than uart. On serial user can
> > fake panic notification.
>
> The serial device is under control of the kernel, so the user can only
> access it if the kernel so allows.
>
Yes, but if we will hijack UART for panic notification VM user will not
be able to use it for anything else. virtio-serial have many channels,
but AFAIK it does not work at early stages of boot process.
--
Gleb.
--
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