Thanks everyone for trying to tackle this long-standing issue. fwiw, here's my $0.02 no how we could proceed:
Someone should draft a special case page for makedumpfile: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Documentation_for_Special_Cases I'm happy to review/provide feedback, but I'd rather someone who would be carrying out the plan drive it. As others have mentioned, testing is the hard part, and we need to define what will be tested in the special case documentation. Since makedumpfile is really just a filter, I don't think we need to (or reasonably could) boot a bunch of systems in different configs and generate crashdumps for every new update. Rather, i think we could build a repository of representative, unfiltered, /proc/vmcore files that focal's existing makedumpfile can parse. Then we can just check that all of those files can still be parsed by the proposed makedumpfile. With some scripting and a multi-architecture cloud, this could be automated. In fact, if this vmcore repo were online, we could implement this an autopkgtest (w/ needs-internet set). But we should also do at least one end-to-end kdump, just to make sure the kdump-tools->makedumpfile interface hasn't been broken. What is a representative sample? One of each of the current LTS and HWE kernels on amd64, arm64, ppc64el and s390x seems like an obvious start (or the subset of those that actually work today). I don't think the machine type is as important, VMs should be fine IMO. If we know of examples where different machines expose structures differently in a way that makedumpfile cares about, then perhaps add those as well. Once a new makedumpfile lands that adds support for a new HWE kernel, we should probably then update the repo w/ vmcore samples from that kernel, so we can make sure the next update doesn't regress that support (probably convenient to do when verifying the SRU, since I imagine we'd be testing that it works w/ the new HWE kernel then anyway). It'd be good to note in the special case request that kdump-tools does fall back to a raw /proc/vmcore file cp if makedumpfile fails, which can mitigate regressions for a subset of users - those with the necessary disk space and lack of time constraints. While I agree that crash falls into the same category, I don't think it necessarily needs to happen at the same time. Obviously users running focal need to dump their vmcore using focal - bug for developers debugging a crash, I don't think it is to onerous to use a newer version of Ubuntu. Again, I'm no saying we *shouldn't* add crash to the special case, it just seems like a makedumpfile exception is significantly more important. Finally, I don't think we need to commit to a frequency of backports, or a point at which they will stop. Rather we can just stick to agreeing on how it *can* be done when someone has the time/interest in doing it. Guillherme's LTS->LTS+1 scheme sounds like a reasonable pattern to shoot for, but if that doesn't happen every time, we're still improving the situation over the status quo. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1970672 Title: makedumpfile falls back to cp with "__vtop4_x86_64: Can't get a valid pmd_pte." To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/makedumpfile/+bug/1970672/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
