| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:33:43 +0530 From: Vijay <thelonejoker@...il.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: john.stultz@...aro.org Subject: Linux apanic mechanism and difference from newer ram_console/persistent_ram mechanism Hello, I am new to the Kernel-Mailing list. I am not subscribed at the moment and would really appreciate it, if I can be CC'd in the reply/responses for my question. I am studying the different logging mechanisms on Linux in case of a Kernel panic (OOPS). So far from my search on the web, I have been able to derive the following information, please correct me if wrong: - apanic was an old mechanism of getting the job done. - ram_console/persistent_ram is a new mechanism. Could someone enlighten me about the following in this regard ? - What was the old apanic mechanism, at a high-level how did this work ? - Why was the apanic mechanism deprecated, in favor of the ram_console/persistent_ram mechanism ? - What advantages does the new ram_console/persistent_ram mechinsm bring to the table. - In what way is the ram_console/persistent_ram functionally different from the old apanic approach ? I am just looking for pointers and high level answers, in some sense a direction which I can take to research the mechanisms further. I would appreciate any relevant information in this regard. Thanks -- 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