>The call is missing from the trap handler, probably because I was
>looking at arm64 where it is missing as well. The result is that the
>stack size accounting will be wrong.
Nice find.
>In the diff below I only added the call to the "data" trap. That
>means that an "instruction" trap will not run the accounting code. Is
>that correct? The uvm_fault() call should never return success in
>that case unless the stack has been mapped executable...
I think both should have it. munmap and mprotect exist, and
people can do strange things.
>Index: arch/powerpc64/powerpc64/trap.c
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/powerpc64/powerpc64/trap.c,v
>retrieving revision 1.39
>diff -u -p -r1.39 trap.c
>--- arch/powerpc64/powerpc64/trap.c 24 Sep 2020 20:22:15 -0000 1.39
>+++ arch/powerpc64/powerpc64/trap.c 24 Sep 2020 21:11:08 -0000
>@@ -181,6 +181,8 @@ trap(struct trapframe *frame)
> ftype = PROT_READ;
> KERNEL_LOCK();
> error = uvm_fault(map, trunc_page(va), 0, ftype);
>+ if (error == 0)
>+ uvm_grow(p, trunc_page(va));
> KERNEL_UNLOCK();
> if (error) {
> #ifdef TRAP_DEBUG
>
>
