This checks that it is not possible to bypass the total stack size check in
update_stack_depth() by calling a function that uses a large amount of
stack memory *before* using a large amount of stack memory in the caller.

Currently, the first added testcase causes a rejection as expected, but
the second testcase is (AFAICS incorrectly) accepted:

[...]
#483/p calls: stack overflow using two frames (post-call access) FAIL
Unexpected success to load!
0: (85) call pc+2
caller:
 R10=fp0,call_-1
callee:
 frame1: R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0,call_0
3: (72) *(u8 *)(r10 -300) = 0
4: (b7) r0 = 0
5: (95) exit
returning from callee:
 frame1: R0_w=inv0 R1=ctx(id=0,off=0,imm=0) R10=fp0,call_0
to caller at 1:
 R0_w=inv0 R10=fp0,call_-1

from 5 to 1: R0=inv0 R10=fp0,call_-1
1: (72) *(u8 *)(r10 -300) = 0
2: (95) exit
processed 6 insns, stack depth 300+300
[...]
Summary: 704 PASSED, 1 FAILED

AFAICS the JIT-generated code for the second testcase shows that this
really causes the stack pointer to be decremented by 300+300:

first function:
00000000  55                push rbp
00000001  4889E5            mov rbp,rsp
00000004  4881EC58010000    sub rsp,0x158
0000000B  4883ED28          sub rbp,byte +0x28
[...]
00000025  E89AB3AFE5        call 0xffffffffe5afb3c4
0000002A  C685D4FEFFFF00    mov byte [rbp-0x12c],0x0
[...]
00000041  4883C528          add rbp,byte +0x28
00000045  C9                leave
00000046  C3                ret

second function:
00000000  55                push rbp
00000001  4889E5            mov rbp,rsp
00000004  4881EC58010000    sub rsp,0x158
0000000B  4883ED28          sub rbp,byte +0x28
[...]
00000025  C685D4FEFFFF00    mov byte [rbp-0x12c],0x0
[...]
0000003E  4883C528          add rbp,byte +0x28
00000042  C9                leave
00000043  C3                ret
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>