From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759229Ab2CMAuY (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:50:24 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:33275 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758881Ab2CMAuT (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:50:19 -0400 Message-ID: <4F5E99C4.7060305@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:50:12 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120209 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: Denys Vlasenko , Roland McGrath , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov , Kushal Das Subject: Re: Extending coredump note section to contain filenames References: <20120309172934.GA18173@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F5DE6A4.2030303@redhat.com> <20120312165359.GA32400@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F5E76CE.4030601@zytor.com> <20120312223144.GA9636@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F5E91DE.80609@zytor.com> <20120313002725.GA17828@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F5E956F.3070108@zytor.com> <20120313003639.GA18427@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F5E97EA.6030001@zytor.com> <20120313004642.GA19090@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20120313004642.GA19090@host2.jankratochvil.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/12/2012 05:46 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:42:18 +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> There is no 100% reliable solution possible -- you have no guarantee of >> any kind that the library executable still exists. > > I have guarantee that the library binary mapped in memory identified by > build-id can be found out there in the could. There is no other guarantee. > And this guarantee fails with other solutions. > > If you say that it is _additional_ info to build-id then yes, one can always > use build-id if everything else fails. But then the non-build-id information > is redundant and it can just lead to wrong toolchain solutions - which has > already happened (Apport). You're thinking of a particular use case which isn't necessarily the only one that matters. It might be the only one that matters to *you*, but that's very different to what matters to a developer, for example. And yes of course the build-id should be included. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.