Re: [PATCH v1] diskdump: add hook for additional checks on prstatus notes validity

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 9:34 PM Aditya Gupta <adityag@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Lianbo,
I have sent the V2 now. Got delayed due to me earlier not being able to test the V2.


Thank you for updating the V2, Aditya.
 
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:55:06AM +0530, Aditya Gupta wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 01:55:32PM +0800, lijiang wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > diff --git a/ppc64.c b/ppc64.c
> > > index fc34006f4863..1159b8c3a8e7 100644
> > > --- a/ppc64.c
> > > +++ b/ppc64.c
> > > @@ -298,6 +298,15 @@ struct machine_specific book3e_machine_specific = {
> > >         .is_vmaddr = book3e_is_vmaddr,
> > >  };
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * No additional checks are required on PPC64, for checking if PRSTATUS
> > > notes
> > > + * is valid
> > > + */
> > > +int ppc64_is_cpu_prstatus_valid(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > +       return TRUE;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  #define SKIBOOT_BASE                   0x30000000
> > >
> > >  /*
> > > @@ -418,6 +427,7 @@ ppc64_init(int when)
> > >                 break;
> > >
> > >         case POST_GDB:
> > > +               machdep->is_cpu_prstatus_valid =
> > > ppc64_is_cpu_prstatus_valid;
> > >
> >
> > The hook is set in the stage of POST_GDB, I'm wondering if the current
> > warning is still shown in the crash minimal mode(with option --minimal).
> > Can you help to confirm this one?
>
> Sure, will check this. Just looked at it, seems the warning might still be there,
> if it is minimal mode.
> Basically what I wanted is, this machdep->is_cpu_prstatus_valid to be
> overwritten, after diskdump_init has run (which sets machdep->is_cpu_prstatus_valid
> to a default), and before 'map_cpus_to_prstatus_kdump_cmprs' (where it is used),
> will see if the warning comes, will try to understand the flow and move the
> code accordingly.
>

I tested this also. The warning is not shown in minimal mode. Still, your
suggestion was right logically, moved it to PRE_GDB stage in V2, since then we don't
have this ambiguity of the 'is_cpu_prstatus_valid' hook being set or not. Now, it
will be correctly initialised in all cases.
 
That's great. I will look at the V2 later.

Thanks
Lianbo
 

Thanks,
- Aditya Gupta

--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
Contribution Guidelines: https://github.com/crash-utility/crash/wiki

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

 

Powered by Linux