linux-kernel - Re: Make the 32 bit Frame Pointer backtracer fall back to traditional

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:	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:54:17 +0100
From:	Olaf Dietsche <olaf+list.linux-kernel@...fdietsche.de>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Make the 32 bit Frame Pointer backtracer fall back to traditional

Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> writes:

> I coded it, it's not all that bad, the output looks like:
>
> Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.24-rc7 #17
>  [<c0405d6c>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
>  [<c04066d6>] show_trace+0x12/0x14  
>  [<c0406f47>] dump_stack+0x6a/0x70
>  [<e01f6028>] backtrace_test_timer+0x23/0x25 [backtracetest]
>  [<c0426f07>] run_timer_softirq+0x11b/0x17c
>  [<e01f6005>] .backtrace_test_timer+0x0/0x25 [backtracetest]
>  [<c043b2e0>] .trace_hardirqs_on+0x101/0x13b
>  [<e01f6005>] .backtrace_test_timer+0x0/0x25 [backtracetest]
>  [<c04243ac>] __do_softirq+0x42/0x94
>  [<c04070a0>] do_softirq+0x50/0xb6
>  [<c0453f3c>] .handle_edge_irq+0x0/0xfa
>  [<c04242a9>] irq_exit+0x37/0x67
>  [<c04071a0>] do_IRQ+0x9a/0xaf
>  [<c04057da>] common_interrupt+0x2e/0x34
>  [<c041007b>] .write_watchdog_counter32+0x5/0x48
>  [<c0523371>] .acpi_idle_enter_simple+0x167/0x1da
>  [<c05807fe>] cpuidle_idle_call+0x52/0x78
>  [<c04034f3>] cpu_idle+0x46/0x60
>  [<c05fbbd3>] rest_init+0x43/0x45
>  [<c070aa3d>] start_kernel+0x279/0x27f
>  [<c070a327>] .unknown_bootoption+0x0/0x1a4
>  =======================
>
> where I used a "." to indicate potentially-unreliable (this I'm not
> very happy with, but I can print anything I want on either side of
> the function; ideas welcome).

Maybe question marks?

Regards, Olaf.
--
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/