Re: Segfault in _Unwind_* code called from pthread_exit

On 31.10.17 10:28, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> 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.

I am aware about KERN_PROC_SIGTRAMP and older OS releases, that's why I 
asked for feedback.
Do we, FreeBSD'ers, want to have gcc unwind support on older than 
FreeBSD 9.3 releases? I think the gcc folks do not care, but we are the 
ones who might have an need for such a support?
_at_Gerald, do you have an opinion?

I can 'ifdef' the new code and in the 'else' case we fall back to the 
already existing path.

Thank you both for the feedback.
Andreas