Re: [PATCH v3 21/22] netoops: Add user-programmable boot_id

[Mike Waychison]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 14:33 -0800, Mike Waychison wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > What happens if you oops before userspace is available?
>> >
>>
>> Either one of two general cases:
>>   - The crash is a one-off and the machine comes back.  The boot
>> number sequence will see a hole in it, which is a clue that something
>> bad happened.
>>   - The machine is in a crash loop.  This has the same failure mode
>> for us as if the machine never made it onto the network due to
>> whatever reason: bad cables, bad firmware, bad ram, ...
>>
>> In both cases, we can detect that something is wrong and handle it.
>> Note that our firmware is responsible for incrementing the boot
>> sequence at bootup, which is why the above works.   In general though,
>> our machines do make it up to userland -- staying alive once booted is
>> the hard part ;)
>
> Interesting. Is this Google-specific firmware magic?

Ya, this is a Google-ism.  I'd be surprised if there weren't other
platforms that had the same thing though (though I don't know of
anything standard on x86).

> I'd probably accept
> a hook in random.c to fold a number into the UUID, which would unify
> things.

I'm not sure there is a _good_ way to support this, is there?  I just
read through RFC 4122 and UUIDs seem to be pretty well structured;
it's probably not such a great idea to allow folks to override
portions of it.  Like I mentioned in my last email though, I'm okay
pushing this boot sequence ID down into the user blob which acts like
a place for "vendor extensions" if there isn't a good place for it in
the kernel.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/