(2015/03/23 16:19), Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Baoquan He <bhe at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> CC more people ...
>>
>> On 03/07/15 at 01:31am, "Hatayama, Daisuke/?? ??" wrote:
>>> The commit f06e5153f4ae2e2f3b0300f0e260e40cb7fefd45 introduced
>>> "crash_kexec_post_notifiers" kernel boot option, which toggles
>>> wheather panic() calls crash_kexec() before panic_notifiers and dump
>>> kmsg or after.
>>>
>>> The problem is that the commit overlooks panic_on_oops kernel boot
>>> option. If it is enabled, crash_kexec() is called directly without
>>> going through panic() in oops path.
>>>
>>> To fix this issue, this patch adds a check to
>>> "crash_kexec_post_notifiers" in the condition of kexec_should_crash().
>>>
>>> Also, put a comment in kexec_should_crash() to explain not obvious
>>> things on this patch.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama at jp.fujitsu.com>
>>> Acked-by: Baoquan He <bhe at redhat.com>
>>> Tested-by: Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez at hitachi.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt at hitachi.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/kernel.h | 3 +++
>>> kernel/kexec.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>> kernel/panic.c | 2 +-
>>> 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> This is hack upon hack, but why was this crap merged in the first
> place?
>
> I see two problems just by cursory review:
>
> 1)
>
> Firstly, the real bug in:
>
> f06e5153f4ae ("kernel/panic.c: add "crash_kexec_post_notifiers" option for kdump after panic_notifers")
>
> Was that crash_kexec() was called unconditionally after notifiers were
> called, which should be fixed via the simple patch below (untested).
> Looks much simpler than your fix.
No, Daisuke's patch is not for that case. Since the kdump has a special hook in
kernel oops, when both of panic_on_oops and crash_kernel are set, panic() is
never called. Please see oops_end at arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
----
void oops_end(unsigned long flags, struct pt_regs *regs, int signr)
{
if (regs && kexec_should_crash(current))
crash_kexec(regs);
----
Of course crash_kexec() never return except failing kexec unexpectedly.
Thus, kexec_should_crash should returns 0 if crash_kexec_post_notifiers is set.
(Semantically, it is a bit strange that panic_on_oops doesn't call panic(), but
that is another topic.)
However, your patch is also needed since the first crash_kexec() can fail in panic()
when crash_kexec_post_notifiers is not set. In that case, kernel tries to call
notifiers and call the 2nd crash_kexec() again. Actually the 2nd one is useless.
So, here is my reviewed-by.
Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt at hitachi.com>
I'll be reply the latter part in other mail.
Thank you,
>
> 2)
>
> Secondly, and more importantly, the whole premise of commit
> f06e5153f4ae is broken IMHO:
>
> "This can help rare situations where kdump fails because of unstable
> crashed kernel or hardware failure (memory corruption on critical
> data/code)"
>
> wtf?
>
> If the kernel crashed due to a kernel crash, then the kernel booting
> up in whatever hardware state should be able to do a clean bootup. The
> fix for those 'rare situations' should be to fix the real bug (for
> example by making hardware driver init (or deinit) sequences more
> robust), not to paper it over by ordering around crash-time sequences
> ...
>
> If it crashed due to some hardware failure, there's literally an
> infinite amount of failure modes that may or may not be impacted by
> kexec crash-time handling ordering. We don't want to put a zillion
> such flags into the kernel proper just to allow the perturbation of
> the kernel.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
>
> diff --git a/kernel/panic.c b/kernel/panic.c
> index 8136ad76e5fd..774614f72cbd 100644
> --- a/kernel/panic.c
> +++ b/kernel/panic.c
> @@ -142,7 +142,8 @@ void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
> * Note: since some panic_notifiers can make crashed kernel
> * more unstable, it can increase risks of the kdump failure too.
> */
> - crash_kexec(NULL);
> + if (crash_kexec_post_notifiers)
> + crash_kexec(NULL);
>
> bust_spinlocks(0);
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt at hitachi.com
