On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:55:46AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:31:11 +0200, Borislav Petkov said:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 12:37:28PM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
> > True. Like stated by me earlier, there could be two possible outcomes
> > from capturing memory dump in such cases - they're either dangerous or
> > doesn't make sense.
>
> Why, in the second example the only corruption is to the L2 cache so
> your memory image is intact. Why wouldn't you want to capture a memory
> dump then? It is business as usual in that case.
I'll bite. What's the use case for bothering to capture a memory dump when
you're looking at an MCE that indicates L2 cache corruption? What additional
useful information could you possibly get from the dump?
This was just a hypothetical example to show that you need a more
finer-grained differentiation between fatal MCEs when deciding to dump
or not to dump :-) and not to unconditionally _not_ dump just because
we're going to panic.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.