From the garbage collector's perspective, time can move backwards in
cgocall. However, in the midst of this time warp, the pointer
arguments to cgocall can go from dead back to live. If a stack growth
happens while they're dead and then a GC happens when they become live
again, GC can crash with a bad heap pointer.

Specifically, the sequence that leads to a panic is:

1. cgocall calls entersyscall, which saves the PC and SP of its call
site in cgocall. Call this PC/SP "X". At "X" both pointer arguments
are live.

2. cgocall calls asmcgocall. Call the PC/SP of this call "Y". At "Y"
neither pointer argument is live.

3. asmcgocall calls the C code, which eventually calls back into the
Go code.

4. cgocallbackg remembers the saved PC/SP "X" in some local variables,
calls exitsyscall, and then calls cgocallbackg1.

5. The Go code causes a stack growth. This stack unwind sees PC/SP "Y"
in the cgocall frame. Since the arguments are dead at "Y", they are
not adjusted.

6. The Go code returns to cgocallbackg1, which calls reentersyscall
with the recorded saved PC/SP "X", so "X" gets stashed back into
gp.syscallpc/sp.

7. GC scans the stack. It sees there's a saved syscall PC/SP, so it
starts the traceback at PC/SP "X". At "X" the arguments are considered
live, so it scans them, but since they weren't adjusted, the pointers
are bad, so it panics.

This issue started as of commit ca4089ad, when the compiler stopped
marking arguments as live for the whole function.

Since this is a variable liveness issue, fix it by adding KeepAlive
calls that keep the arguments live across this whole time warp.

The existing issue7978 test has all of the infrastructure for testing
this except that it's currently up to chance whether a stack growth
happens in the callback (it currently only happens on the
linux-amd64-noopt builder, for example). Update this test to force a
stack growth, which causes it to fail reliably without this fix.

Fixes #17785.

Change-Id: If706963819ee7814e6705693247bcb97a6f7adb8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/33710Reviewed-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>