From: "Fabio M. Di Nitto" <fdinitto@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Fabio M. Di Nitto" <fabbione@fabbione.net>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Kees Cook <kees.cook@canonical.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Daid Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] console: allow to retain boot console via boot option keep_bootcon
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:35:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D4182A7.5050503@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D37D18D.9060402@redhat.com>
Hi all,
On 1/20/2011 7:09 AM, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> On 01/20/2011 01:19 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:40:24 +0100
>> "Fabio M. Di Nitto" <fabbione@fabbione.net> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Fabio M. Di Nitto <fdinitto@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> On some architectures, the boot process involves de-registering the boot
>>> console (early boot), initialize drivers and then re-register the console.
>>>
>>> This mechanism introduces a window in which no printk can happen on the console
>>> and messages are buffered and then printed once the new console is available.
>>>
>>> If a kernel crashes during this window, all it's left on the boot console
>>> is "console [foo] enabled, bootconsole disabled" making debug of the crash
>>> rather 'interesting'.
>>>
>>> By adding "keep_bootcon" option, do not unregister the boot console, that
>>> will allow to printk everything that is happening up to the crash.
>>>
>>> The option is clearly meant only for debugging purposes as it introduces lots
>>> of duplicated info printed on console, but will make bug report from users
>>> easier as it doesn't require a kernel build just to figure out where we crash.
>>>
>>
>> I don't get it, as usual.
>
> It might just be my itaglish explanation :)
>
>>
>> The architecture does
>>
>> a) deregister boot console
>> b) initialize drivers
>> c) register console
>>
>> and the patch basically disables step a).
>
> Yes that is correct.
>
>>
>> But if we can do that without screwing things up, why not simply change
>> the architecture to not deregister the boot console until after
>> initializing the drivers?
>
> I am not entirely sure if this is possible (or even worth it since this
> is a pure debugging option) and what kind of effects it might have on
> the boot output (in terms of duplicated entries on the output that might
> or might not make it more difficult to read). I am happy to investigate
> that and come back to you soon.
I have been looking into your suggestion and I think this is what
already happens.
According to kernel/print.k:
> /*
> * By unregistering the bootconsoles after we enable the real console
> * we get the "console xxx enabled" message on all the consoles -
> * boot consoles, real consoles, etc - this is to ensure that end
> * users know there might be something in the kernel's log buffer that
> * went to the bootconsole (that they do not see on the real console)
> */
but my understanding, and please correct if I am wrong, is that when we
load or initialize modules such as fbcon (I made this patch debugging a
crash in atyfb), a console is indeed registered and bootconsole disable,
while in reality the real console is not there yet (in my case fbcon was
loaded but not atyfb yet).
At a later stage, once atyfb is loaded, it registers with fbcon and then
the console output starts again.
Thanks again for your time
Fabio
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-27 14:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-12 8:40 [PATCH] console: allow to retain boot console via boot option keep_bootcon Fabio M. Di Nitto
2011-01-20 0:19 ` Andrew Morton
2011-01-20 6:09 ` Fabio M. Di Nitto
2011-01-27 14:35 ` Fabio M. Di Nitto [this message]
2011-01-27 20:47 ` David Miller
2011-01-27 20:52 ` Fabio M. Di NItto
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=4D4182A7.5050503@redhat.com \
--to=fdinitto@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=fabbione@fabbione.net \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kees.cook@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=namhyung@gmail.com \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
/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