Mark Assembly.GetCallingAssembly with [RequiresDynamicCode].

[teo-tsirpanis]

Fixes #71290
Fixes #53825

I added [RequiresDynamicCode] to Assembly.GetDynamicAssembly across all runtimes, and also marked all APIs that use it. The only uses of it in non-test code are AssemblyBuilder.DefineDynamicAssembly which obviously is already marked, and some APIs in Microsoft.VisualBasic.Core (c.c. @cston).

[dotnet-issue-labeler]

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, to please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-system-reflection
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

Fixes #71290
Fixes #53825

I added [RequiresDynamicCode] to Assembly.GetDynamicAssembly across all runtimes, and also marked all APIs that use it. The only uses of it in non-test code are AssemblyBuilder.DefineDynamicAssembly which obviously is already marked, and some APIs in Microsoft.VisualBasic.Core (c.c. @cston).

Author:	teo-tsirpanis
Assignees:	-
Labels:	area-System.Reflection, new-api-needs-documentation
Milestone:	-

[teo-tsirpanis]

Many but not all APIs of this class use GetCallingAssembly (some did call it only in debug asserts) but I didn't bother and marked the whole class. This class is very outdated either way.

[MichalStrehovsky]

I wanted to comment when I saw the original issue but I forgot. I don't know if we have the right way to annotate this.

RequiresDynamicCode means we need to generate native code at runtime.

The problem here is different:

• On WASM, we are not allowed to do stack walk because the platform forbids it. We don't know who's the caller because of that.
• On NativeAOT, we can strip metadata about code that doesn't need it. We can do a stack walk, but we still might not know what MethodBase the code is associated with. It's kind of a trimming problem. It's just the trimming can be a lot more aggressive for native code. The more appropriate would be RequiresUnreferencedCode, but even that one is not exact.

I don't know what the right solution is. I'm just having a bit doubts about this one.

[jkotas]

The next best option would be to mark this API obsolete. dotnet/csharplang#4984 would be required for that to have viable replacement.

[buyaa-n]

Sounds like could use combination of RequiresUnreferencedCode and UnsupportedOSPlatform("browser")

[MichalStrehovsky]

Sounds like could use combination of RequiresUnreferencedCode and UnsupportedOSPlatform("browser")

Unfortunately WASM not supporting stackwalks is more nuanced - it works when we're running interpreter because we're not using the WASM execution stack. It doesn't work when the code was AOT'd.

I would really love it if we could just obsolete this API and not have this problem :/.

[buyaa-n]

Thanks all, as we don't want to fix the issue this way closing the PR