On 26.08.17 20:40, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 08:28:13PM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 02:44:42 +0300 Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com>
wrote:
How does llvm unwinder detects that the return address is a garbage ?
It just stops unwinding when it can't find frame information (stored in
.eh_frame sections). GCC unwinder doesn't give up yet and checks if the
return address points to the signal trampoline (which means the current
frame is that of a signal handler). It has built-in knowledge of how to
unwind to the signal trampoline frame.
So llvm just gives up on signal frames ?
A noreturn attribute isn't enough. You can still unwind such functions.
They are allowed to throw exceptions for example.
Ok.
I did consider using
a CFI directive (see patch below) and it works, but it's architecture
specific and it's inserted after the function prologue so there's still
a window of a few instructions where a stack unwinder will try to use
the return address.
Index: lib/libthr/thread/thr_create.c
===================================================================
--- lib/libthr/thread/thr_create.c (revision 322802)
+++ lib/libthr/thread/thr_create.c (working copy)
@@ -251,6 +251,7 @@ create_stack(struct pthread_attr *pattr)
static void
thread_start(struct pthread *curthread)
{
+ __asm(".cfi_undefined %rip");
sigset_t set;
if (curthread->attr.suspend == THR_CREATE_SUSPENDED)
I like this approach much more than the previous patch. What can be
done is to provide asm trampoline which calls thread_start(). There you
can add the .cfi_undefined right at the entry.
It is somewhat more work than just setting the return address on the
kernel-constructed pseudo stack frame, but I believe this is ultimately
correct way. You still can do it only on some arches, if you do not
have incentive to code asm for all of them.
Also crt1 probably should get the same treatment, despite we already set
%rbp to zero AFAIR.
Did some commit result out of this discussion or is this subject still
under investigation?
Curious because I got this gcc PR:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82635
Tia,
Andreas
_______________________________________________
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"
