Re: [Valgrind-users] Spam (9.229): Problem with suppressions

[Tom H. <to...@co...>]

Suppression can't really help with this - even if you can stop one or 
two complaints the undefined bits tend to propagate through the 
encryption state and hence to everything encrypted or decrypted using 
the state that is (partially) derived from the undefined data.

Tom

On 30/08/17 16:51, Dominik Straßer wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> similar to my answer to John:
> why isn't suppression working here ?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Dominik
> 
> Am 30.08.2017 um 17:32 schrieb Julian Seward:
>>> As these seem OK to me (cryprography intentionally works with
>>> uninitialized values) I would like to suppress them.
>> Another thing you could consider doing, if you really have to use undefined
>> values, is to figure out where they come from (heap or stack allocation,
>> use --track-origins) and then add a VALGRIND_MAKE_DEFINED (or whatever it is
>> called) client request.  This lies to Memcheck, claiming the inputs are
>> defined when they are not really.  But at least it will not complain about
>> undefinedness from them alone, after that.
>>
>> See <valgrind/memcheck.h>.
>>
>> J
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Valgrind-users mailing list
> Val...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
> 


-- 
Tom Hughes (to...@co...)
http://compton.nu/