From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A629C433FE for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:07:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:59826 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRtER-00074N-0l for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 05:07:47 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55522) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRtDE-0005zG-Eh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 05:06:32 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:58347) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nRtDA-0003uB-Tb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 05:06:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1646820387; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=BbdUKP6NTQORj3bn0C1AfDyDBaiFAf0W+jmRXWiqhEg=; b=fIEp+0c2opq7uncoyqGjRfryycocemWAzEtiorZYxfYGxDVrM77DO+M5nCCGmDx/PLBkph /fnZv0HaaaNXlh6gif4OK/uuQzmIv66dpmrkFaBGCrVf/PzcJKHvO8FQFfv7MVEpPRGl// PsoS8ln+7j57/86RwNyHhlhnyrJRtkA= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-220-GKNufuHHOz6trPuzEaTkbg-1; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 05:06:24 -0500 X-MC-Unique: GKNufuHHOz6trPuzEaTkbg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2DA71006AA8; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:06:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.88]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D101059144; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:06:20 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Tom Tromey Subject: Re: How to backtrace an separate stack? References: <87sfrtakce.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <87fsnt1xhg.fsf@tromey.com> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 11:06:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87fsnt1xhg.fsf@tromey.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Mon, 07 Mar 2022 10:30:35 -0700") Message-ID: <87ilsn784k.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=fweimer@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=fweimer@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.082, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi via Gdb , pedro@palves.net, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" * Tom Tromey: > Florian> I'm a bit surprised by this. Conceptually, why would GDB need to know > Florian> about stack boundaries? Is there some heuristic to detect broken > Florian> frames? > > Yes, the infamous "previous frame inner to this frame" error message. I > think this is primarily intended to detect stack trashing, but maybe it > also serves to work around bad debuginfo or bugs in the unwinders. > > This error was disabled for cases where the GCC split stack feature is > used. There's been requests to disable it in other cases as well, I > think. Is there a user-level command to disable the check manually? Thanks, Florian