RE: [PATCH] usercopy: delete __noreturn from usercopy_abort

[David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>]

From: Russell King
> Sent: 06 March 2024 09:52
> 
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 09:58:46AM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > This is an off-by-one bug which is common in unwinders, due to the fact
> > that the address on the stack points to the return address rather than
> > the call address.
> >
> > So, for example, when the last instruction of a function is a function
> > call (e.g., to a noreturn function), it can cause the unwinder to
> > incorrectly try to unwind from the function *after* the callee.
> 
> I suppose this can only happen in __noreturn functions because that
> can be:
> 
> foo:
> ..
> 	bl	bar
> .. end of function and thus next function ...
> 
> which results in LR pointing into the next function.
> 
> Would it make better sense to lookup the LR value winding it back by
> one instruction like ORC on x86 does (as you mention) rather than
> the patch you proposed which looks rather large and complicated?

Is it even possible to always reliably get a stack trace from
a no-return function on a cpu that uses a 'lr'?

If the function doesn't return then the compiler need not save
'lr' on stack and can still use it as a temporary register.
Without a valid 'lr' I think all you can do is search the stack
for a likely code address?

Am I missing something?

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)