From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754723AbYAJGzH (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:55:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752184AbYAJGy4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:54:56 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:51544 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752021AbYAJGy4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:54:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:54:38 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: Fix x86 32 bit FRAME_POINTER chasing code Message-ID: <20080110065438.GA23022@elte.hu> References: <20080109220421.630d3516@laptopd505.fenrus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080109220421.630d3516@laptopd505.fenrus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Arjan van de Ven wrote: > +++ linux-2.6.24-rc7/arch/x86/kernel/traps_32.c > @@ -124,7 +124,8 @@ static inline unsigned long print_contex > unsigned long addr; > > addr = frame->return_address; > - ops->address(data, addr); > + if (__kernel_text_address(addr)) > + ops->address(data, addr); > /* > * break out of recursive entries (such as > * end_of_stack_stop_unwind_function). Also, > @@ -132,6 +133,7 @@ static inline unsigned long print_contex > * move downwards! > */ > next = frame->next_frame; > + ebp = (unsigned long) next; > if (next <= frame) thanks, applied. Nice catch! > This patch is simple; I don't know if it's .24 candidate; the bug is > pretty bad but not a recent regression, and there is obviously some > risk with touching this code. it's a 2.6.24.1 candidate i believe. We trigger plenty of various crashes during x86.git maintenance and others hit various crashes in -mm, so by the time .1 is released we'll have it in .25 and can backport it. Most folks/distros will update to 2.6.24.1 very quickly so there's no risk of months loss of quality to kerneloops.org data either. if there's more than 1-2 weeks to the v2.6.24 release we could merge it right now as well: Acked-by: Ingo Molnar because in a week we'll trigger plenty of crashes in -git based x86 trees and will know about any regressions and will be able to reasonably trust it. Ingo