Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace
1–10 of 69 posts
Re: Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace
#2Instead of teaching people how to do this portably across all UNIX-like systems, by sending SIGABRT to the process, the article is steeping them in GNU/Linux only way of doing things. This feels exactly like the '90's of the past century, where a lot of people with computer-related careers had no idea that there were other operating systems and other ways of doing things (better): an intel-based PC tin bucket with Windows was the one and only truth for them. Now it's exactly the same except Windows has been replaced with GNU/Linux. 28 years later and the only advancement some people have made is running the proverbial sed 's/Windows/Linux/g'.
Re: Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace
#3Instead of teaching people how to do this portably across all UNIX-like systems, by sending SIGABRT to the process, the article is steeping them in GNU/Linux only way of doing things. This feels exactly like the '90's of the past century, where a lot of people with computer-related careers had no idea that there were other operating systems and other ways of doing things (better): an intel-based PC tin bucket with Wi…
Could you write a blog post in response that describes the better way to achieve this? There are possibly related items which you could throw in for others on achieving better portability.
Re: Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace
#4Instead of teaching people how to do this portably across all UNIX-like systems, by sending SIGABRT to the process, the article is steeping them in GNU/Linux only way of doing things. This feels exactly like the '90's of the past century, where a lot of people with computer-related careers had no idea that there were other operating systems and other ways of doing things (better): an intel-based PC tin bucket with Wi…
Umm, what is the alternative O/S that has complete hardware support?
Re: Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace
#5Instead of teaching people how to do this portably across all UNIX-like systems, by sending SIGABRT to the process, the article is steeping them in GNU/Linux only way of doing things. This feels exactly like the '90's of the past century, where a lot of people with computer-related careers had no idea that there were other operating systems and other ways of doing things (better): an intel-based PC tin bucket with Wi…
Umm, what is the alternative O/S that has complete hardware support?
What is the non alternative O/S that has complete hardware support? fwiw openbsd / freebsd have been painless to install on every machine I have tried in the last 5 years.
Re: Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace
#6Instead of teaching people how to do this portably across all UNIX-like systems, by sending SIGABRT to the process, the article is steeping them in GNU/Linux only way of doing things. This feels exactly like the '90's of the past century, where a lot of people with computer-related careers had no idea that there were other operating systems and other ways of doing things (better): an intel-based PC tin bucket with Wi…
This mainly about grabbing the kernel stack trace. There's not a portable way to do that.
Also, doesn't SIGABRT generally kill off the process?
Re: Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace
#7Instead of teaching people how to do this portably across all UNIX-like systems, by sending SIGABRT to the process, the article is steeping them in GNU/Linux only way of doing things. This feels exactly like the '90's of the past century, where a lot of people with computer-related careers had no idea that there were other operating systems and other ways of doing things (better): an intel-based PC tin bucket with Wi…
Yes, it feels strange to hear millennials talk about UNIX, when they are actually talking about GNU/Linux, and many things don't apply to e.g. OS X, Aix or many other variants.
Re: Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace
#8Instead of teaching people how to do this portably across all UNIX-like systems, by sending SIGABRT to the process, the article is steeping them in GNU/Linux only way of doing things. This feels exactly like the '90's of the past century, where a lot of people with computer-related careers had no idea that there were other operating systems and other ways of doing things (better): an intel-based PC tin bucket with Wi…
Using SIGABRT gets you a stack trace in the same manner as a burnt house excuses you from sweeping the floors.
Re: Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm, what is the alternative O/S that has complete hardware support?
What is the non alternative O/S that has complete hardware support? fwiw openbsd / freebsd have been painless to install on every machine I have tried in the last 5 years.
How's the support for bluetooth on openbsd these days?
Re: Using /proc to get a process' current stack trace
#10Instead of teaching people how to do this portably across all UNIX-like systems, by sending SIGABRT to the process, the article is steeping them in GNU/Linux only way of doing things. This feels exactly like the '90's of the past century, where a lot of people with computer-related careers had no idea that there were other operating systems and other ways of doing things (better): an intel-based PC tin bucket with Wi…
That's a very strange response. This is an article about Linux specifically. The author tags the article with Linux and mentions that it's part of a series of articles about Linux. It's not in and of itself a bad idea to have articles that specialise in a specific unix flavour.
Secondly, SIGABRT will cause the process to abort and dump core, will it not? That would give you a userspace stack trace (if you load the core into a debugger) whereas this is how you get the kernel-side stack trace of a still-running process.
I don't know of a way to get the kernel stack trace of a process in a cross-platform way. Is there such a thing?