On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:04:43AM -0700, Haren Myneni wrote:
> [email protected] wrote on 09/22/2005 09:31:52 AM:
>
> > Dave Anderson <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > Just flagging the cpu, and then mapping that to the stack pointer
> found in
> > > the associated NT_PRSTATUS register set should work OK too. It gets
> > > a little muddy if it crashed while running on an IRQ stack, but it
> > still can be
> > > tracked back from there as well. (although not if the crashing
> > task overflowed
> > > the IRQ stack)
> >
> > You can't track it back from the crashing cpu if the IRQ stack overflows
> > either. So I would rather have crash confused when trying to find the
> > task_struct. Then to have the kernel fail avoidably while attempting
> > to capture a core dump.
> >
> > Even if you overflow the stack wit a bit of detective work it should
> still
> > be possible to show the stack overflowed and correct for it when
> analyzing
> > the crash dump. Doing anything like that from a crashing cpu (in a
> > reliable way) is very hard.
> >
> > > The task_struct would be ideal though -- if the kernel's use of
> task_structs
> > > changes in the future, well, then crash is going to need a serious
> re-write
> > > anyway... FWIW, netdump and diskdump use the NT_TASKSTRUCT note
> > > note to store just the "current" pointer, and not the whole
> > task_struct itself,
> > > which would just be a waste of space in the ELF header for
> crash'spurposes.
> > > And looking at the gdb sources, it appears to be totally ignored. Who
> > > uses the NT_TASKSTRUCT note anyway?
> >
> > Good question, especially as the kernel exports whatever we have for
> > a task struct today in the ELF note. No ABI compatibility is
> > maintained.
> >
> > Given all of that I recommend an empty NT_TASKSTRUCT to flag the
> > crashing cpu, for now.
>
> At present /proc/kcore writes the complete task structure for
> NT_TASKSTRUCT note section. Thought it is the standard. Hence created
> separate note section. The other option is the crash tool can directly
> read "crashing_cpu variable" from the vmcore to determine the panic cpu.
> Similarly, we can define panic_task variable in the kernel.
crashing_cpu was introduced recently to handle one of the problems caused
due to NMI. I think we should not be relying on this variable. we get the
value of crashing_cpu by making smp_processor_id() call and this value will
be corrupted in case of stack overflow.
During OLS, Eric had suggested to either find a way to disable NMI after
panic() or may be read LAPIC id. Reading LAPIC id seems to be more reliable.
I think mkdump folks already do something similar.
So, in short, using crashing_cpu might not be a good idea. Down the line
this varibale might not be present at all.
>
> Basically, we can use some global structure in the kernel and dump any
> needed information which we do not need to invoke any analysis tools
> (crash, gdb). Dumping CPU control registers can also be done this way
> without creating separate note section.
>
> Thanks
> Haren
>
> Anyway, we already have crashing_cpu variable in the kernel.
> >
> > Eric
> > _______________________________________________
> > fastboot mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
> _______________________________________________
> fastboot mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |