>> Has anyone even tried to reproduce Bruce's crash?
>
>I looked at it a bit, but it puzzles me. The chaining for the interrupt stacks
>on i386 -- which is what seems to be corrupted here -- shouldn't have changed at all
>by the unwinder changes.
Not necessarily:
if (UNW_SP(&info))
stack = (void *)UNW_SP(&info);
is rather fragile - the minimum extra protection here should be to only use
UNW_SP() for the continuation stack pointer if it actually points into kernel
space (as is being done in one of the 2.6.19 patches), ...
>I suspect it would crash without unwinder too. Bruce, do you get the
>same crash when you boot with "call_trace=old" ?
... but of course I continue to agree that doing things like
addr = *stack++;
in the legacy stack trace code cannot be good, given that this code
generally is expected to run when things are already bad in some way.
Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
