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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <200809051648.52767.bs@q-leap.de>
Date:	Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:48:52 +0200
From:	Bernd Schubert <bs@...eap.de>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: frame unwinder patches

On Friday 05 September 2008 16:13:37 Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:52:47 +0200
>
> Bernd Schubert <bs@...eap.de> wrote:
> > > (and if you really care it's 1 line of code to turn it off)
> >
> > It is not only this, I think the dwarf2 stack unwinder patches
> > provide by far better traces than the in-kernel unwinder. At least
> > ever since I applied these patches to our kernels, I was able to read
> > the stack dumps...
>
> they really wouldn't be different than the ones you get if you remove
> the "?" lines.

Well may be, but then there is still the performace degrading, so I don't want 
to have it enabled on our production kernels. I admit I never measured what 
is the difference between of CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y and =n, but the fact the 
help text says there is a difference already makes me want to disable it 
(especially, since we have to provide benchmarks before we can sell a 
system).


Cheers,
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/