Can you disambiguate CTF? I only know that as capture the flag, which doesn't really make sense here.
Edit: ok, I figured it out.
No theyre not going to give you that raw information because it's a kernel ASLR bypass. You can totally get all the same information with the dwarf symbols, but you're going to have to opt in on a kernel for it to mean anything.
Edit2: bitching about how people aren't using portable Unix techniques, and then citing features that are Solaris specific isn't a great look.
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/816-5041/syntax-20/inde...
For that to be useful, you'd need the addresses in question, which is why it'd be an ASLR bypass. The kernel needs to give higher level information by default so it can sanitize the output.
And the debugging symbols exist on Linux anyway, they're just DWARF (which ironically is the more standards compliant way as opposed to CTF).
https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ctf&apropos=0&sekt...
Linux is the one lagging behind, as usual.
How is embedding source code an "ASLR bypass"?
Embddeding debugging information in a way that allows to you to use it (ie. in a way that you'd care about the format as an end user) implies giving you kernel addresses, which implies an ASLR bypass. If it's an implementation detail, then DWARF works great.
Yes, a SIGABRT will get you a core file and will kill a process, but if your process is hanging in an endless loop (like the author's was), one already has far bigger problems, and keeping such a process running will not amount to much.