Vivek Goyal <[email protected]> writes:
> So basically the idea is that whatever one wants to do it should be done
> in the next kernel, even notifications. But this might require some data
> from the context of previous kernel, for example destination IP address etc.
> So the associated data either needs to be passed to new kernel or it shall
> have to be retrieved from permanent storage or something like that.
Yes.
Except when under tight time constraints this is clearly possible.
When under time constraints things are more dicy. I expect that
with a tuned kernel you can be back in user space in about 1 second.
Detecting a failure is hard and slow. Unless the condition that
triggers the panic is the initial source of the panic it is quite
likely a time window less than 1 second has already elapsed.
So I am certainly willing to discuss this but until I see a clear
model where a new kernel will not meet the time constraints for
some fairly fundamental reasons, and that a crash notifier
will almost always meet those same time constraints, I can't imagine
a persuasive case.
The panic notifier itself is barely used and it seems to exist
only because we didn't have a general purpose policy mechanism.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
