On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:54:05PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote: > On 30.10.17 15:32, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 20:40:46 +0100 Andreas Tobler <andreast-list_at_fgznet.ch> wrote: > >> Attached what I have for libgcc. It can be applied to gcc5-8, should > >> give no issues. The mentioned tc from this thread and mine, > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635 do pass. > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > Like I said before the return address can be anything. It could for > > instance point to some instruction in a random function and then the > > stack unwinder will think thread_start was called from that function. > > There's no check you can add to libgcc to distinguish that from a > > normal valid return address. > > > Maybe not, and most probably I do not understand what is happening. But > with my modification I survive the test case. > > If no objections from your or Konstantin's side come up I will commit it > to the gcc repo. It will not 'fix' the issue, but it will improve the > gcc behavior. I posted something similar when the discussion thread started. From the cursory look, your patch is better than mine. The only difference that makes me wonder is that I used #ifdef KERN_PROC_SIGTRAMP around the block because I believe gcc has more relaxed policy about supporting obsoleted OS versions.Received on Tue Oct 31 2017 - 08:28:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:13 UTC