Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace

Re:Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace by Annatar on Monday October 15, 2018 @04:38PM (#18223485)

It's not a Solaris specific feature; FreeBSD has it as well:

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"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace by monocasa on Monday October 15, 2018 @05:31PM (#18223976)

OK, it's a dtrace thing that got ported to FreeBSD with dtrace. That still doesn't make it "Unix" any more than Linux's proc access.

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace by geofft on Monday October 15, 2018 @08:44PM (#18225470)

And if "FreeBSD has it too" is our standard for portable UNIX features, then /proc counts thanks to linprocfs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace by Annatar on Tuesday October 16, 2018 @01:06AM (#18226680)

/proc on Linux wasn't implemented like /proc is on other operating systems; it's the only /proc implemented that way. The interface, if it could even be called that, is completely proprietary to Linux; output is ad hoc with no consistency. As usual.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace by Annatar on Tuesday October 16, 2018 @01:10AM (#18226704)

Again, which bypass? If you attach to a process you will see machine code and it will be stored at memory addresses.

[ Parent | on HN ]