Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/pstore: add pstore test scripts going with reboot

[Hiraku Toyooka <hiraku.toyooka.gu-FCd8Q96Dh0JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>]

Hello,

 >> +prlog "Causing kernel crash ..."
 >> +
 >> +# enable all functions triggered by sysrq
 >> +echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq
 >> +# setting to reboot in 3 seconds after panic
 >> +echo 3 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic
 >> +# setting to cause panic when oops occurs
 >> +echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic_on_oops
 >> +
 >> +# create a file as reboot flag
 >> +touch $REBOOT_FILE
 >> +sync
 >> +
 >> +# cause crash
 >> +echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger
 >
 > Do you need to stop kdump service before the sysrq?

Yes, I should check /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_loaded. If the value is
1, this script should try to unload kexec kernel.

 > Or, does it cover oops and kdump case?

No, not yet. I think we should support oops case at first.

Best regards,
Hiraku Toyooka

阿口誠司 / AGUCHI，SEIJI wrote:
>
>> +prlog "Causing kernel crash ..."
>> +
>> +# enable all functions triggered by sysrq
>> +echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq
>> +# setting to reboot in 3 seconds after panic
>> +echo 3 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic
>> +# setting to cause panic when oops occurs
>> +echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic_on_oops
>> +
>> +# create a file as reboot flag
>> +touch $REBOOT_FILE
>> +sync
>> +
>> +# cause crash
>> +echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger
>
> Do you need to stop kdump service before the sysrq?
> Or, does it cover oops and kdump case?
>
> Seiji
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 豊岡拓 / Toyooka，Hiraku
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:42 AM
>> To: Kees Cook
>> Cc: LKML; Tony Luck; Linux API; Anton Vorontsov; Shuah Khan; Mark Salyzyn; Colin Cross; 阿口誠司 / AGUCHI，SEIJI
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/pstore: add pstore test scripts going with reboot
>>
>> Hello Kees,
>>
>>   >> +run_crash:
>>   >> +       @sh pstore_crash_test || echo "pstore_crash_test: [FAIL]"
>>   >
>>   > This is probably better written to exit 1 on failure, otherwise it
>>   > just _says_ it fails. (Though lots of selftests in the tree already
>>   > have this problem, it's best to avoid the pattern for new stuff.)
>>   > Maybe something like:
>>   >
>>   >      @sh pstore_crash_test || { echo "pstore_crash_test: [FAIL]";
>> exit 1; }
>>
>> OK. I'll add the "exit 1".
>>
>>   >> +prlog -n "Checking dmesg files exist in pstore filesystem ... "
>>   >> +if [ -e dmesg-${backend}-0 ]; then
>>   >> +    prlog "ok"
>>   >> +    for f in `ls dmesg-${backend}-*`; do
>>   >> +       prlog -e "\t${f}"
>>   >> +    done
>>   >> +else
>>   >> +    prlog "FAIL"
>>   >> +    rc=1
>>   >> +fi
>>   >
>>   > This test pattern is repeated a lot. Maybe better to create a helper
>>   > function instead? It could make the tests much more readable.
>>
>> Yes, I should make a helper function in v2.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Hiraku Toyooka

-- 
Hiraku Toyooka
Systems Productivity Research Dept. / Linux Technology Center
Center for Technology Innovation - Systems Engineering, Hitachi Ltd.