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]

Message-Id: <44EADD1A.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:31:54 +0200
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Subject: Re: boot failure, "DWARF2 unwinder stuck at 0xc0100199"

>> >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.

I was thinking of the fixes to the fallback logic and the bottom-of-stack annotations.

Jan
-
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/