linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/33] [RFC] Non disruptive application core dump infrastructure

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: <532FFE3A.9060002@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Mar 2014 15:13:22 +0530
From:	Janani Venkataraman <jananive@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Phillip Susi <psusi@...ntu.com>, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>
CC:	amwang@...hat.com, rdunlap@...otime.net, andi@...stfloor.org,
	aravinda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, hch@....de, mhiramat@...hat.com,
	jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com, xemul@...allels.com,
	suzuki@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
	adobriyan@...il.com, tarundsk@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	vapier@...too.org, roland@...k.frob.com, tj@...nel.org,
	ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, gorcunov@...nvz.org, avagin@...nvz.org,
	oleg@...hat.com, eparis@...hat.com, d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com,
	james.hogan@...tec.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, coreutils@....org,
	procps@...elists.org, util-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	util-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/33] [RFC] Non disruptive application core dump infrastructure


On 03/21/2014 08:32 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 3/21/2014 4:17 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
>> The gencore command looks like a good idea, but why we need the
>> client-server infrastructure? At least at first glance it seems
>> like overkill.
> Yes, the server seems pointless.
>
>>> We would like to push this to one of the following packages: a)
>>> util-linux b) coreutils c) procps-ng
>> d) somewhere near to gdb :-)
> gdb already has such a thing; it's called gcore.  Kind of makes this
> work seem redundant?

Gcore attaches to the process using gdb and runs the gdb gcore command
and then detaches. In gcore the dump cannot be issued from a signal handler
context as fork() is not signal safe and moreover it is disruptive in nature as the
gdb attaches using ptrace which sends a SIGSTOP signal. Hence the gcore method
cannot be used if the process wants to initiate a self dump as well.
The following link points to a discussion regarding why not gcore.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/3/122

>

--
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/