linux-kernel - Re: boot failure, "DWARF2 unwinder stuck at 0xc0100199"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:22:59 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Subject: Re: boot failure, "DWARF2 unwinder stuck at 0xc0100199"


> My understanding of 'for' is that Andi will send to Linus after in the 2.6.19
> merge window.

Yes.

> 
> >Guys, this unwinder change has been quite problematic.  We really cannot
> >let this badness out into 2.6.18 - it degrades our ability to debug every
> >subsystem in the entire kernel.  Would marking it CONFIG_BROKEN get us back
> >to 2.6.17 behaviour?
> 
> I'd prefer pushing into 2.6.18 some of the patches currently scheduled for
> 2.6.19 over marking it CONFIG_BROKEN. But that's clearly not my decision.

Hmm, which patches did you want? I got a double digit number of unwind
related patches already, some of them quite intrusive, and all of them would be clearly
too much. My preference for 2.6.18 would be really only absolutely critical stuff
because I'm paranoid of breaking more.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/