[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180510042206.GA3426@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 13:22:06 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: printk feature for syzbot?
On (04/26/18 12:06), Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > Petr, Steven, Fengguang, what do you think? Do you have any objections?
> > Ideas?
>
> I wonder if we could create some mechanism that would help to extend
> struct printk_log easier in the future.
Hm, interesting idea.
> I know only about crash tool implementation. It uses information provided
> by log_buf_vmcoreinfo_setup(). The size of the structure is already
> public. Therefore crash should be able to find all existing information
> even if we increase the size of the structure.
>
> log_buf_vmcoreinfo_setup() even allows to inform about newly added
> structure items. We could probably extend it to inform also about
> the offset of the new optional elements.
I vaguely remember that the last time Thomas Gleixner modified
printk_log you managed to find a case that broke crash tool.
... Or may be I'm mistaken.
> I am not sure about other tools. But I think that it should be
> doable.
Good. So there are no objections, so far.
Tetsuo, Dmitry, care to send a patch?
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists