* Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> It could - and _should_ dammit! - do some basic sanity tests like "is
> the thing even in the same stack page"? But nooo... It seems
> _designed_ to be fragile and broken.
>
> Here's a simple test: if the next stack-slot isn't on the same page,
> the unwind information is bogus unless you had the IRQ stack-switch
> signature there. Does the code do that? No. It just assumes that
> unwind information is complete and perfect.
fully agreed - i have pointed out areas of conceptual fragility to Jan
early on:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/2/59
(but AFAICS i got no reply to that mail - i missed that in the lockdep
flurry.)
Ingo
-
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]
