On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 11:35:17AM -0700, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 09:53:34AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote: > > The current vmcoreinfo implementation defaults to enabled, so I wanted to > > preserve that behavior to avoid silently removing symbols that existing > > tools may depend on. Would you prefer a different default? > > You do know Linus' stance on enabling things by default which are not > ubiquitous, right?
Oh yea, I am familiar with it. :-) > Logging hw errors in vmcore is really necessary to be enabled everywhere? I am happy to make it no, if we transform it to a KCONFIG. Right now it is not a Kconfig, so, it comes with VMCORE set of exported fields. > > I agree the sysfs exposure duplicates existing infrastructure, points > > taken. However, tracking fatal hardware errors provides value at crash > > analysis time—it lets us quickly determine whether a fatal hardware > > error occurred during the kernel's lifetime, which is useful for > > root-cause attribution. > > Yes, that's why you put it in vmcore. You can't read sysfs if you encounter > a fatal hw error. Ack. Right now it is not tracking fatal error (just recoverable error), although I think it is a good idea to also track Fatal error (of course that not on sysfs). > > For this, would you like to keep it in vmcore info (as of today), or > > move to RAS subsystem? > > You mean, would I like to pay attention to more patches than now? > > Not really - I can barely manage as it is. Come one Borislav, we need your insights/review/opinions here as well. :-)
