linux-kernel - Re: frame unwinder patches

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: <200809051119.21699.bs@q-leap.de>
Date:	Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:19:21 +0200
From:	Bernd Schubert <bs@...eap.de>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: frame unwinder patches

On Thursday 04 September 2008 19:29:36 Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:46:52 +0200
>
> Bernd Schubert <bs@...eap.de> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > up to 2.6.22 the -mm series had these nice frame unwinder patches,
> > which gave beautiful stack traces. Unfortunately these frame unwinder
> > patches seem to have been dropped :(
> >
> > Anyone still maintaining updated patches?
> >
> > Probably all the "?" lines shouldn't be printed.
>
> printing the ? lines is the result of a compromise between getting the
> most reliable information out of a stack trace, and getting a useful
> data for the case where not everything is going as well as it should.
>
> not printing the ? would be trivial (for some backtraces we do that),
> but so far hasn't been seen as desirable because you lose information
> in those hard-to-debug cases when you need anything you can get from
> the backtrace.

I see your point, but in most cases it is rather annoying.


Bernd

-- 
Bernd Schubert
Q-Leap Networks GmbH
--
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/