On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:14:28AM +0000, David Laight wrote: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 09:39:04PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > Hi all, > > we have quite a few tools in base that still require KVM or optionally > > support it. Removing all tools that require KVM for operation (and > > therefore setgid) is one of the open goals. It would be nice if that > > doesn't require adding lots of duplicate code. For that, a decision is > > required what programs are required for post-mortem analysis (i.e. > > debugging kernel dumps) and limit dual-KVM/sysctl code paths to that. > > For post-mortem work you often want the raw information from the kernel > structures (ie including the KVA of things), which the normal user-tools > don't need.
Agreed. > Putting the work into a single program that grovells KVM for diagnostics > (aka SYV crash) means that only one program has to exactly match the > kernel (and, maybe, could be compiled with the kernel?). Also agreed. So the question remains, what data does need to be extractable that way? Joerg
