Re: My position on general ``RAS'' tool support infrastructure

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...>
Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...>, <pete@...>, Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...>, Amit Kale <amitkale@...>, Dave Anderson <anderson@...>, <kdb@...>, <jlan@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 12:28 am

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 06:38:53PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:

I would be nice to have a kernel debugger co-exist with crash dumping.

I like Eric's idea of debugger putting a break point on panic(). This
would mean that rest of the post panic() actions have to be performed
by second kernel which can perform those actions much more reliably.

But this also brings in the additional requirement of passing all the
required context to second kernel. For example, in the past somebody wanted
to send a message to a remote node that sytem crashed so that standby can
take over.  If the same job has to be done in second kernel, it requires all
the relavant information like remote host IP, port etc passed to the second
kernel which I think makes the job little harder. May be one can pre-configure
these parameters in user space and let the job be done either from initrd
or user space scripts in second kernel.

Thanks
Vivek
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
My position on general ``RAS'' tool support infrastructure, Eric W. Biederman, (Thu Sep 13, 9:21 am)
Re: My position on general ``RAS'' tool support infrastructure, Vivek Goyal, (Tue Sep 18, 12:28 am)