Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 00/11] xen: Initial kexec/kdumpimplementation

From: Daniel Kiper
Date: Fri Jan 04 2013 - 12:01:58 EST

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 02:38:44PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 04/01/13 14:22, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 11:26:43AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 27/12/12 18:02, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>> Andrew Cooper<andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 27/12/2012 07:53, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >>>>> The syscall ABI still has the wrong semantics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Aka totally unmaintainable and umergeable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The concept of domU support is also strange. What does domU support even mean, when the dom0 support is loading a kernel to pick up Xen when Xen falls over.
> >>>> There are two requirements pulling at this patch series, but I agree
> >>>> that we need to clarify them.
> >>> It probably make sense to split them apart a little even.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thinking about this split, there might be a way to simply it even more.
> >>
> >> /sbin/kexec can load the "Xen" crash kernel itself by issuing
> >> hypercalls using /dev/xen/privcmd. This would remove the need for
> >> the dom0 kernel to distinguish between loading a crash kernel for
> >> itself and loading a kernel for Xen.
> >>
> >> Or is this just a silly idea complicating the matter?
> >
> > This is impossible with current Xen kexec/kdump interface.
> > It should be changed to do that. However, I suppose that
> > Xen community would not be interested in such changes.
> I don't see why the hypercall ABI cannot be extended with new sub-ops
> that do the right thing -- the existing ABI is a bit weird.
> I plan to start prototyping something shortly (hopefully next week) for
> the Xen kexec case.

Wow... As I can this time Xen community is interested in...
That is great. I agree that current kexec interface is not ideal.

David, I am happy to help in that process. However, if you wish I could
carry it myself. Anyway, it looks that I should hold on with my
Linux kexec/kdump patches.

My .5 cents:
- We should focus on KEXEC_CMD_kexec_load and KEXEC_CMD_kexec_unload;
probably we should introduce KEXEC_CMD_kexec_load2 and KEXEC_CMD_kexec_unload2;
load should __LOAD__ kernel image and other things into hypervisor memory;
I suppose that allmost all things could be copied from linux/kernel/kexec.c,
I think that KEXEC_CMD_kexec should stay as is,
- Hmmm... Now I think that we should still use kexec syscall to load image
into Xen memory (with new KEXEC_CMD_kexec_load2) because it establishes
all things which are needed to call kdump if dom0 crashes; however,
I could be wrong...
- last but not least, we should think about support for PV guests too.

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