From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com,
ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
jwilson@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Patch] kexec: remove KMSG_DUMP_KEXEC (was Re: Query about kdump_msg hook into crash_kexec())
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 17:51:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110531215126.GW16382@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DE3277D.8070109@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 02:13:33PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> (2011/05/27 5:10), Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 13:53:01 +0900 (JST)
> > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> I wrote why this is no good idea by another mail. Please see it.
> >>>> Anyway you have a right to don't use this feature.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> But you have not explained that why do you need to hook into crash_kexec()
> >>> and you have also not explained why do you need to send out kdump_msg()
> >>> notification if kdump is configured.
> >>>
> >>> Some detailed explanation here would help.
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I send it you now :)
> >>
> >
> > What happened with this? kexec-remove-kmsg_dump_kexec.patch has two acks
> > and one unexplained nack :(
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/1084f406573d76ac/ee19e34b45f83536?lnk=raot&pli=1
>
> At last mail, Vivek proposed move kms_dump() instead remove. and I asked following question and
> I've got no response. I'm still waiting his.
>
>
> > I'm sorry I've missed this mail long time.
> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > @@ -74,6 +75,7 @@ NORET_TYPE void panic(const char * fmt, ...)
> >> > dump_stack();
> >> > #endif
> >> > + kmsg_dump(KMSG_DUMP_PANIC);
> >> > /*
> >> > * If we have crashed and we have a crash kernel loaded let it handle
> >> > * everything else.
> >> > * Do we want to call this before we try to display a message?
> >> > */
> >> > crash_kexec(NULL);
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> And I think to compensate for that somebody introduced additional
> >> kmsg_dump(KEXEC) call inside crash_kexec() and put it under CONFIG
> >> option so that one can change the behavior based on config options.
> >> I think this makes the logic somewhat twisted and an unnecessary call
> >> inside crash_kexec(). So until and unless there is a strong reason we
> >> can get rid of KEXEC event and move kmsg_dump call before crash_kexec()
> >> for now and see how does it go, IMHO.
> >
> >
> > I think I can agree your proposal. But could you please explain why do
> > you think kmsg _before_ kdump and kmsg _in_ kdump are so different?
> > I think it is only C level difference. CPU don't care C function and
> > anyway the kernel call kmsg_dump() because invoke second kernel even
> > if you proposal applied.
> > It is only curious. I'm not against your proposal.
> > Thanks.
Few reasons.
- There is no correlation between crash_kexec() and kdump_msg(). What
you are creating is equivalent of panic notifiers and calling those
notifiers before dump happened. So calling it inside of crash_kexec()
does not make much sense from code point of view.
- Why does somebody need to keep track of event KMSG_DUMP_KEXEC?
- There is one kernel CONFIG option introduce which looks completely
superfluous.
My general take on the whole issue.
- In general I think exporting a hook to module so that they can do
anything before crash is a bad idea. Now this can be overloaded to
do things like sending crash notifications in clustered environement
where we recommend doing it in second kernel.
- Even if we really have to do it, there seemed to be two concern
areas.
- Reliability of kdump_msg() generic infrastructure and its
capability in terms of handling races with other cpus and
NMIs.
- Reliability of module which is getting the callback from
kdump_msg().
I think in one of the mails I was discussing that common infrastructure
between kdump and kmsg_dump() can be put in a separate function, like
stopping all cpus etc to avoid races in generic infrastrucutre and
then first we can all kmsg_dump() and then crash_kexec().
But this still does not provide us any protection against modules getting
control after crash and possiblly worsen the situation.
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-31 21:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-31 22:59 Query about kdump_msg hook into crash_kexec() Vivek Goyal
2011-02-01 7:19 ` Américo Wang
2011-02-01 7:33 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-02-01 7:38 ` Américo Wang
2011-02-01 8:13 ` [Patch] kexec: remove KMSG_DUMP_KEXEC (was Re: Query about kdump_msg hook into crash_kexec()) Américo Wang
2011-02-01 15:28 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-02-01 16:06 ` Jarod Wilson
2011-02-03 0:59 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-02-03 2:07 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-02-03 4:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-26 20:10 ` Andrew Morton
2011-05-28 1:43 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-05-30 7:30 ` Américo Wang
2011-05-30 5:13 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-31 21:51 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-06-09 11:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-06-14 22:13 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-05-31 20:58 ` Seiji Aguchi
2011-05-31 21:37 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-05-31 22:24 ` Seiji Aguchi
2011-06-02 3:26 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-06-08 0:00 ` Andrew Morton
2011-06-09 11:15 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-02-03 0:55 ` Query about kdump_msg hook into crash_kexec() KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-02-03 2:05 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-02-03 4:52 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-02-03 5:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-02-04 15:00 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-03-08 1:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-02-04 14:58 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-02-03 18:38 ` Seiji Aguchi
2011-02-03 21:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-02-03 22:08 ` Seiji Aguchi
2011-02-04 2:24 ` Américo Wang
2011-02-04 2:50 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-02-04 3:28 ` Américo Wang
2011-02-04 6:40 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-02-08 16:46 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-02-08 17:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2011-02-08 19:27 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-02-08 19:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110531215126.GW16382@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=jwilson@redhat.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox