Bug 352521

Summary: sysreport issues sysrq-t by default - this is dangerous
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Reporter: Sam Knuth <sfolkwil>
Component: sosAssignee: Navid Sheikhol-Eslami <neslami>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: urgent Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 5.0CC: pknirsch, tao, vanhoof
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-12-27 13:25:22 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Sam Knuth 2007-10-25 15:42:57 UTC 
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #348981 +++

Description of problem:

Sysreport in HREL 5.0 issues sysrq-t by default
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:

Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Run sysreport command with no options
2.
3.
  
Actual results:

Sysreport runs and echos "t" to /proc/sysrq-trigger and other sysrq commands

Expected results:

Sysrq-t should not be issued by default
Additional info:

This went in as a feature but it's really a regression. Issuing sysrq should
only be done in specific circumstances. It should not be done as a routine
practice when sysreport is normally run. Sysrq-t can cause a large variety of
problems including applicaiton failover, scsi resets/timeouts, bonding failover,
and application hangs.

-- Additional comment from than on 2007-10-24 04:55 EST --
it seems a critical bug. We should probably release the fix.

-- Additional comment from pknirsch on 2007-10-24 06:37 EST --
Suggesting for RHEL-3.9 and giving Devel ACK as the fix is simple and important.

Read ya, Phil

-- Additional comment from rbiba on 2007-10-25 11:37 EST --
QA ACK for RHEL 3.
Comment 1 Sam Knuth 2007-10-25 16:31:36 UTC 
I think this is actually sysreport not sos
Comment 2 Sam Knuth 2007-10-26 12:23:19 UTC 
Actually I think this is a dup of bug 232920
Comment 3 Navid Sheikhol-Eslami 2007-12-27 13:25:22 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 232920 ***