lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/pstore: add pstore test scripts going with reboot
Hello,

>> +prlog "Causing kernel crash ..."
>> +
>> +# enable all functions triggered by sysrq
>> +echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq
>> +# setting to reboot in 3 seconds after panic
>> +echo 3 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic
>> +# setting to cause panic when oops occurs
>> +echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic_on_oops
>> +
>> +# create a file as reboot flag
>> +touch $REBOOT_FILE
>> +sync
>> +
>> +# cause crash
>> +echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger
>
> Do you need to stop kdump service before the sysrq?

Yes, I should check /sys/kernel/kexec_crash_loaded. If the value is
1, this script should try to unload kexec kernel.

> Or, does it cover oops and kdump case?

No, not yet. I think we should support oops case at first.

Best regards,
Hiraku Toyooka

阿口誠司 / AGUCHI,SEIJI wrote:
>
>> +prlog "Causing kernel crash ..."
>> +
>> +# enable all functions triggered by sysrq
>> +echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq
>> +# setting to reboot in 3 seconds after panic
>> +echo 3 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic
>> +# setting to cause panic when oops occurs
>> +echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/panic_on_oops
>> +
>> +# create a file as reboot flag
>> +touch $REBOOT_FILE
>> +sync
>> +
>> +# cause crash
>> +echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger
>
> Do you need to stop kdump service before the sysrq?
> Or, does it cover oops and kdump case?
>
> Seiji
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 豊岡拓 / Toyooka,Hiraku
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:42 AM
>> To: Kees Cook
>> Cc: LKML; Tony Luck; Linux API; Anton Vorontsov; Shuah Khan; Mark Salyzyn; Colin Cross; 阿口誠司 / AGUCHI,SEIJI
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/pstore: add pstore test scripts going with reboot
>>
>> Hello Kees,
>>
>> >> +run_crash:
>> >> + @sh pstore_crash_test || echo "pstore_crash_test: [FAIL]"
>> >
>> > This is probably better written to exit 1 on failure, otherwise it
>> > just _says_ it fails. (Though lots of selftests in the tree already
>> > have this problem, it's best to avoid the pattern for new stuff.)
>> > Maybe something like:
>> >
>> > @sh pstore_crash_test || { echo "pstore_crash_test: [FAIL]";
>> exit 1; }
>>
>> OK. I'll add the "exit 1".
>>
>> >> +prlog -n "Checking dmesg files exist in pstore filesystem ... "
>> >> +if [ -e dmesg-${backend}-0 ]; then
>> >> + prlog "ok"
>> >> + for f in `ls dmesg-${backend}-*`; do
>> >> + prlog -e "\t${f}"
>> >> + done
>> >> +else
>> >> + prlog "FAIL"
>> >> + rc=1
>> >> +fi
>> >
>> > This test pattern is repeated a lot. Maybe better to create a helper
>> > function instead? It could make the tests much more readable.
>>
>> Yes, I should make a helper function in v2.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Hiraku Toyooka

--
Hiraku Toyooka
Systems Productivity Research Dept. / Linux Technology Center
Center for Technology Innovation - Systems Engineering, Hitachi Ltd.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-17 08:21    [W:0.058 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site