Re: [patch 0/9] kdump: Patch series for s390 support

From: Michael Holzheu
Date: Thu Jul 21 2011 - 10:58:43 EST

Hello Vivek,

On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 15:25 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 08:03:08PM +0200, Michael Holzheu wrote:


> > What you as kdump framework maintainer would have to accept with this
> > solution is that it is allowed now to start kdump directly via purgatory
> > without using code from the old kernel (e.g. crash_kexec). This has as
> > implication that all things that the old kernel has to initialize for
> > kdump has to be done before the system crashes. Currently this is only
> > the initialization of vmcoreinfo.
> Hi Michael,
> Instead of introdcuing a new entry point for second kernel, why not
> jump to crash_kexec() from stand alone tools? That should be functionally
> equivalent to what you described above without any need to pass the
> purgatory details to stand alone tools.

That has the drawback that we still execute unchecked code from the
crashed kernel. But ...

... I discussed that with Martin and we had an idea how to deal with
this problem. On s390 when an invalid opcode is executed or invalid
parameters are used, we get a program check interrupt. When the
crash_kexec() code path or data is corrupted, it is almost sure that we
get a program check. The stand-alone dump tools could establish a
program check interrupt handler that jumps back to the dump tools code
and then create full-blown dump.

So I think with this mechanism we could use an entry point (name it
s390_kdump_entry) in the old kernel that calls crash_kexec().

We would change the purgatory code that for s390 it returns to the
caller, if the checksum test fails. This *requires* that
s390_kdump_entry()->crash_kexec()->machine_kexec() is allowed to return.
Currently this is the case.

> Only thing which needs to be figured out is how to pass the address of
> crash_kexec() to stand alone tools and set registers/parameters
> appropriately.

We could do this s390 specific (e.g. using meminfo). In this case this
would only be used for kernel/dump tools communication and not for
kernel/kernel communication. So I hope this should not be a problem for

Then the design would look like the following:
* Define s390_kdump_entry in old kernel that calls crash_kexec()
* Use preallocated ELF core header
* s390_kdump_entry code path stores registers to ELF notes, ...
* ... and finally jumps to purgatory code
* For s390 the purgatory code returns to caller in case of
checksum failure
* dump tools call s390_kdump_entry with program check handler
for error handling

I think, if we do it that way, we do not affect the current kdump
framework at all.

Is that acceptable for you? If yes, I would rework my patches


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at