Re: [PATCH v5] ramoops: use pstore interface

[Marco Stornelli]

2012/4/10 Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Marco Stornelli
> <marco.stornelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Il 09/04/2012 23:42, Luck, Tony ha scritto:
>>
>>>> The patch breaks ramoops module unloading.  Tony says there's "no
>>>> credible end-user case" for this and Marco promptly provided one,
>>>> which was ignored.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that I understood Marco's use case. He said:
>>>
>>>> First of all ramoops was born mainly for debug purpose and
>>>> to help the maintainability of a product. I used it in systems
>>>> where the uptime (so no reboot) was important. So it can be
>>>> very useful for me load the module, gather logs and unload it
>>>> for example. A kernel panic is not recoverable so the reboot
>>>> is needed but it's not always true for a kernel oops.
>>>
>>>
>>> In the non-crashed oops case ... aren't all the logs you need
>>> in /var/log/messages?
>>>
>>> -Tony
>>
>>
>> Maybe you right, but it could be useful to have a "single log point"
>> especially for automatic/semi-automatic log gathering. I'm not sure we can
>> *always* read from messages in case of non-crashed oops. Sure, it will be
>> possible after a reboot, but if /var was mounted with tmpfs (on embedded
>> systems it's possible :)) we have no log.
>>
>> PS: It's only a brainstorming on all the possible situation :)
>
> Do you feel that this lack of unloading is still a sufficient reason
> to NAK the ramoops patch?
>
> -Kees
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> ChromeOS Security

I don't want to use a "veto" about this patch. If nobody see problem
to apply it, then even ok for me. As I said I'm guessing possible
situations where an unload features is useful.

Andrew what do you think?

Marco
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/