On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 12:19 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tuesday 02 May 2006 12:11, Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao wrote: > > > All NMI handlers think they are different and more special than everybody > > > else. Otherwise they wouldn't be NMI. kdump is really in no way special. > > If what we want is a reliable crash dumping solution kdump should be > > treated as a special case (see discussion below). > > It's special enough to just set a high priority. More speciality is really > not needed. > > > Besides, the default NMI handler and the notify_die function itself use > > the stack profusely without checking the validity of the stack pointer > > or the state of the stacks (of course this applies to the current > > implementation too). > > It runs on a special reserved NMI stack. And if that doesn't work > anymore then you'll never execute any NMI code because the CPU > won't be able to write the initial stack frame. For some reason, you seem to be assuming I was referring to x86_64. i386 does not have special reserved NMI stacks.
> > After a crash the state of the system is unknown > > and we may end up overflowing the stack or further bloating if it is > > already bloated. For this reason kdump is very likely to fail in stack > > overflow scenarios. I will elaborate on this in the next email. > > I don't think you understand how x86-64 exception handling works. I think I do. I was not talking about the x86-64 case in particular. Regards, Fernando
_______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
