On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:54:05 +0100 Andreas Tobler <andreast-l...@fgznet.ch> wrote: > On 30.10.17 15:32, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >> On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 20:40:46 +0100 Andreas Tobler <andreast-l...@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.
The patch looks good to me. KERN_PROC_SIGTRAMP was added in 9.3 it seems. If gcc wants to support older versions you may have to use an #ifdef like Konstantin did in his first reply in this thread. _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
