Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@redhat.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "Guilherme G . Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>,
        Stephen Kitt <steve@sk2.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Joel Savitz <jsavitz@redhat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Renaud =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E9trich?= <rmetrich@redhat.com>,
        Grzegorz Halat <ghalat@redhat.com>, Qi Guo <qguo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] core_pattern: add CPU specifier
Date:   Thu, 08 Sep 2022 08:11:07 +0200
Message-ID: <12050461.O9o76ZdvQC@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <877d2ec0ac.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
References: <20220903064330.20772-1-oleksandr@redhat.com> <20220907173438.GA15992@redhat.com> <877d2ec0ac.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hello.

On =C4=8Dtvrtek 8. z=C3=A1=C5=99=C3=AD 2022 0:00:43 CEST Eric W. Biederman =
wrote:
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> writes:
>=20
> > On 09/07, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> >>
> >> The advantage of having CPU recorded in the file name is that
> >> in case of multiple cores one can summarise them with a simple
> >> ls+grep without invoking a fully-featured debugger to find out
> >> whether the segfaults happened on the same CPU.
> >
> > Besides, if you only need to gather the statistics about the faulting
> > CPU(s), you do not even need to actually dump the the core. For example,
> > something like
> >
> > 	#!/usr/bin/sh
> >
> > 	echo $* >> path/to/coredump-stat.txt
> >
> > and
> > 	echo '| path-to-script-above %C' >/proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
> >
> > can help.
>=20
> So I am confused.  I thought someone had modified print_fatal_signal
> to print this information.  Looking at the code now I don't see it,
> but perhaps that is in linux-next somewhere.

That's a different story that gets solved here: [1] [2].

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?h=
=3Dx86/cpu&id=3Dc926087eb38520b268515ae1a842db6db62554cc
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220811024903.178925-1-ira.weiny@intel.co=
m/

> That would seem to be the really obvious place to put this and much
> closer to the original fault so we ware more likely to record the
> cpu on which things actually happened on.
>=20
> If we don't care about the core dump just getting the information in
> syslog where it can be analyzed seems like the thing to do.
>=20
> For a developers box putting it in core pattern makes sense, isn't a
> hinderance to use.  For anyone else's box the information needs to come
> out in a way that allows automated tools to look for a pattern.
> Requiring someone to take an extra step to print the information seems
> a hinderance to automated tools doing the looking.
>=20
> Eric
>=20
>=20


=2D-=20
Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)
Principal Software Maintenance Engineer