Re: [PATCH v1 07/11] fs/proc/vmcore: introduce PROC_VMCORE_DEVICE_RAM to detect device RAM ranges in 2nd kernel

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

 



On 22.11.24 08:31, Baoquan He wrote:
On 10/25/24 at 05:11pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
......snip...
diff --git a/fs/proc/vmcore.c b/fs/proc/vmcore.c
index 3e90416ee54e..c332a9a4920b 100644
--- a/fs/proc/vmcore.c
+++ b/fs/proc/vmcore.c
@@ -69,6 +69,8 @@ static LIST_HEAD(vmcore_cb_list);
  /* Whether the vmcore has been opened once. */
  static bool vmcore_opened;
+static void vmcore_process_device_ram(struct vmcore_cb *cb);
+
  void register_vmcore_cb(struct vmcore_cb *cb)
  {
  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cb->next);
@@ -80,6 +82,8 @@ void register_vmcore_cb(struct vmcore_cb *cb)
  	 */
  	if (vmcore_opened)
  		pr_warn_once("Unexpected vmcore callback registration\n");
+	else if (cb->get_device_ram)
+		vmcore_process_device_ram(cb);

Global variable 'vmcore_opened' is used to indicate if /proc/vmcore is
opened. With &vmcore_mutex, we don't need to worry about concurrent
opening and modification. However, if people just open /proc/vmcore and
close it after checking, then s390 will miss the vmcore dumping, is it
acceptable?

See my reply to your other mail (patch #3).


  	mutex_unlock(&vmcore_mutex);
  }
  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(register_vmcore_cb);
@@ -1511,6 +1515,158 @@ int vmcore_add_device_dump(struct vmcoredd_data *data)
......
+
+static void vmcore_process_device_ram(struct vmcore_cb *cb)
+{
+	unsigned char *e_ident = (unsigned char *)elfcorebuf;
+	struct vmcore_mem_node *first, *m;
+	LIST_HEAD(list);
+	int count;
+
+	if (cb->get_device_ram(cb, &list)) {
+		pr_err("Kdump: obtaining device ram ranges failed\n");
+		return;
+	}
+	count = list_count_nodes(&list);
+	if (!count)
+		return;
+
+	/* We only support Elf64 dumps for now. */
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(e_ident[EI_CLASS] != ELFCLASS64)) {
+		pr_err("Kdump: device ram ranges only support Elf64\n");
+		goto out_free;
+	}

Only supporting Elf64 dumps seems to be a basic checking, do we need
to put it at the beginning of function? Otherwise, we spend efforts to
call cb->get_device_ram(), then fail.

The idea was that if there is nothing to add, then the elf class doesn't matter. But yes, I can move this further up.

Thanks!

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux