Re: [PATCH 1/2] Use faster check for modules in backtrace on 64bit

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 04:31:16PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> This has the (small) potential to get a false positive on a pointer to a
> data segment in a module.  However since we also use the frame pointer
> chain as initial sanity check I think the danger of this is very low.
> 

So this has come up several times; and the answer has always been, why
not make the __module_address() thing a rb-tree instead of a linear
loop. So I suppose I'll ask that again, why not?


--
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/