Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:11:26 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5] ramoops: use pstore interface | From | Kees Cook <> |
| |
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@gmail.com> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |