Re: Fix x86 32 bit FRAME_POINTER chasing code

[Chuck Ebbert]

On 01/10/2008 01:54 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
> 

Using the same logic, why not put it in 2.6.24 and then remove it in 2.6.24.1
if it's broken?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/