linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: drop experimental mark for ARM stack unwinding

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 11 Aug 2018 20:19:52 +0200
From:   Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, arnd@...db.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: drop experimental mark for ARM stack unwinding

On 11.08.2018 18:57, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 12:31:27PM +0200, Stefan Agner wrote:
>> ARM stack unwinding is upstream since 2009 and has been proven
>> working well. At this time it is the preferred stack unwinding
>> support since it also supports Thumb 2. Do not scare people
>> and drop the EXPERIMENTAL mark.
> 
> Actually, there are still cases where we're missing the annotations -
> I've seen them in various oops dumps, but I forget where they are.
> What I do remember is that they didn't seem trivial to fix at the
> time, so it's still recommended that frame pointers are used if you
> want to guarantee getting a debuggable oops dump.

Ok, but does that warrants the experimental mark?

Experimental sounds rather harsh to me. People might disable it because
of that... I'd rather have a >90% chance of having a good stack trace
than none at all.

--
Stefan