You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(122) |
Nov
(152) |
Dec
(69) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(25) |
Mar
(73) |
Apr
(82) |
May
(24) |
Jun
(25) |
Jul
(10) |
Aug
(11) |
Sep
(10) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(203) |
Dec
(182) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(307) |
Feb
(305) |
Mar
(430) |
Apr
(312) |
May
(187) |
Jun
(342) |
Jul
(487) |
Aug
(637) |
Sep
(336) |
Oct
(373) |
Nov
(441) |
Dec
(210) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(385) |
Feb
(480) |
Mar
(636) |
Apr
(544) |
May
(679) |
Jun
(625) |
Jul
(810) |
Aug
(838) |
Sep
(634) |
Oct
(521) |
Nov
(965) |
Dec
(543) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(494) |
Feb
(431) |
Mar
(546) |
Apr
(411) |
May
(406) |
Jun
(322) |
Jul
(256) |
Aug
(401) |
Sep
(345) |
Oct
(542) |
Nov
(308) |
Dec
(481) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(427) |
Feb
(326) |
Mar
(367) |
Apr
(255) |
May
(244) |
Jun
(204) |
Jul
(223) |
Aug
(231) |
Sep
(354) |
Oct
(374) |
Nov
(497) |
Dec
(362) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(322) |
Feb
(482) |
Mar
(658) |
Apr
(422) |
May
(476) |
Jun
(396) |
Jul
(455) |
Aug
(267) |
Sep
(280) |
Oct
(253) |
Nov
(232) |
Dec
(304) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(486) |
Feb
(470) |
Mar
(458) |
Apr
(423) |
May
(696) |
Jun
(461) |
Jul
(551) |
Aug
(575) |
Sep
(134) |
Oct
(110) |
Nov
(157) |
Dec
(102) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(226) |
Feb
(86) |
Mar
(147) |
Apr
(117) |
May
(107) |
Jun
(203) |
Jul
(193) |
Aug
(238) |
Sep
(300) |
Oct
(246) |
Nov
(23) |
Dec
(75) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(133) |
Feb
(195) |
Mar
(315) |
Apr
(200) |
May
(267) |
Jun
(293) |
Jul
(353) |
Aug
(237) |
Sep
(278) |
Oct
(611) |
Nov
(274) |
Dec
(260) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(303) |
Feb
(391) |
Mar
(417) |
Apr
(441) |
May
(488) |
Jun
(655) |
Jul
(590) |
Aug
(610) |
Sep
(526) |
Oct
(478) |
Nov
(359) |
Dec
(372) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(467) |
Feb
(226) |
Mar
(391) |
Apr
(281) |
May
(299) |
Jun
(252) |
Jul
(311) |
Aug
(352) |
Sep
(481) |
Oct
(571) |
Nov
(222) |
Dec
(231) |
| 2014 |
Jan
(185) |
Feb
(329) |
Mar
(245) |
Apr
(238) |
May
(281) |
Jun
(399) |
Jul
(382) |
Aug
(500) |
Sep
(579) |
Oct
(435) |
Nov
(487) |
Dec
(256) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(338) |
Feb
(357) |
Mar
(330) |
Apr
(294) |
May
(191) |
Jun
(108) |
Jul
(142) |
Aug
(261) |
Sep
(190) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(83) |
Dec
(22) |
| 2016 |
Jan
(49) |
Feb
(89) |
Mar
(33) |
Apr
(50) |
May
(27) |
Jun
(34) |
Jul
(53) |
Aug
(53) |
Sep
(98) |
Oct
(206) |
Nov
(93) |
Dec
(53) |
| 2017 |
Jan
(65) |
Feb
(82) |
Mar
(102) |
Apr
(86) |
May
(187) |
Jun
(67) |
Jul
(23) |
Aug
(93) |
Sep
(65) |
Oct
(45) |
Nov
(35) |
Dec
(17) |
| 2018 |
Jan
(26) |
Feb
(35) |
Mar
(38) |
Apr
(32) |
May
(8) |
Jun
(43) |
Jul
(27) |
Aug
(30) |
Sep
(43) |
Oct
(42) |
Nov
(38) |
Dec
(67) |
| 2019 |
Jan
(32) |
Feb
(37) |
Mar
(53) |
Apr
(64) |
May
(49) |
Jun
(18) |
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(53) |
Sep
(25) |
Oct
(30) |
Nov
(49) |
Dec
(31) |
| 2020 |
Jan
(87) |
Feb
(45) |
Mar
(37) |
Apr
(51) |
May
(99) |
Jun
(36) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(14) |
Sep
(20) |
Oct
(24) |
Nov
(40) |
Dec
(23) |
| 2021 |
Jan
(14) |
Feb
(53) |
Mar
(85) |
Apr
(15) |
May
(19) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(57) |
Oct
(73) |
Nov
(56) |
Dec
(22) |
| 2022 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(22) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(55) |
May
(46) |
Jun
(39) |
Jul
(15) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
(11) |
Oct
(34) |
Nov
(20) |
Dec
(36) |
| 2023 |
Jan
(79) |
Feb
(41) |
Mar
(99) |
Apr
(169) |
May
(48) |
Jun
(16) |
Jul
(16) |
Aug
(57) |
Sep
(19) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
(1) |
|
3
|
4
(4) |
5
(4) |
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
(2) |
11
(2) |
12
(2) |
13
|
14
|
15
(2) |
16
(1) |
|
17
(2) |
18
(2) |
19
(3) |
20
(4) |
21
(1) |
22
|
23
|
|
24
(7) |
25
|
26
(4) |
27
(7) |
28
(2) |
29
(1) |
30
(2) |
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: <sv...@va...> - 2016-07-02 18:46:32
|
Author: philippe
Date: Sat Jul 2 19:46:23 2016
New Revision: 15898
Log:
Fix leak in m_redir.c
See below discussion for more details.
On Sat, 2016-07-02 at 14:20 +0200, Philippe Waroquiers wrote:
> I am testing a patch (provided by Julian) that solves a false positive
> memcheck found at my work.
>
> Testing this, I decided to run valgrind under valgrind (not done since
> a long time).
>
> This shows a leak in many tests, the stack trace being such as:
> ==26246== 336 bytes in 21 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 72 of 141
> ==26246== at 0x2801C01D: vgPlain_arena_malloc (m_mallocfree.c:1855)
> ==26246== by 0x2801D616: vgPlain_arena_strdup (m_mallocfree.c:2528)
> ==26246== by 0x2801D616: vgPlain_strdup (m_mallocfree.c:2600)
> ==26246== by 0x2801F5AD: vgPlain_redir_notify_new_DebugInfo (m_redir.c:619)
> ==26246== by 0x2803B650: di_notify_ACHIEVE_ACCEPT_STATE (debuginfo.c:771)
> ==26246== by 0x2803B650: vgPlain_di_notify_mmap (debuginfo.c:1067)
> ==26246== by 0x2806589C: vgModuleLocal_generic_PRE_sys_mmap (syswrap-generic.c:2368)
> ==26246== by 0x2809932A: vgSysWrap_amd64_linux_sys_mmap_before (syswrap-amd64-linux.c:637)
> ==26246== by 0x28061E11: vgPlain_client_syscall (syswrap-main.c:1906)
> ==26246== by 0x2805E9D2: handle_syscall (scheduler.c:1118)
> ==26246== by 0x280604A6: vgPlain_scheduler (scheduler.c:1435)
> ==26246== by 0x2806FF87: thread_wrapper (syswrap-linux.c:103)
> ==26246== by 0x2806FF87: run_a_thread_NORETURN (syswrap-linux.c:156)
>
>
> The strdup call in m_redir.c:619 was introduced by r15726.
>
> However, I am not sure this is a bug that is introduced by this change,
> or if it just reveals a leak that was already there.
> The "very original" replacement logic did not do memory allocation for
> the replacement: see m_redir.c in valgrind 3.10.1 : it was just copying
> some chars from VG_(clo_soname_synonyms) to demangled_sopatt
Yes, it should do exactly the same as the other code paths. If
replaced_sopatt != NULL then it is an allocated string that has been
assigned to demangled_sopatt. I had assumed that would take care of the
life-time issues of the allocated string. But now that I read the code
it is indeed not so clear.
> Then in 3.11, the fixed size demangled_sopatt was changed to be
> a dynamically allocated buffer.
> The revision log 14664 that introduced this explains that the ownership of
> returned buffer is not easy. It tells at the end:
> "So the rule of thunb here is: if in doubt strdup the string."
>
> but now we have to see when to free what, it seems ???
>
> Any thoughts ?
So if replaced_sopatt != NULL, then demangled_sopatt contains the
allocated string, and it is then immediately copied and assigned to
spec->from_sopatt. After that it is used under check_ppcTOCs. But there
it will first be reassigned a new value through maybe_Z_demangle
(overwriting any existing string being pointed to). So for this
particular leak it seem fine to free it right after the spec[List] has
been initialized (line 642).
Cheers,
Mark
Modified:
trunk/coregrind/m_redir.c
Modified: trunk/coregrind/m_redir.c
==============================================================================
--- trunk/coregrind/m_redir.c (original)
+++ trunk/coregrind/m_redir.c Sat Jul 2 19:46:23 2016
@@ -616,7 +616,7 @@
if (replaced_sopatt == NULL
&& VG_(strcmp) ( demangled_sopatt, SO_SYN_MALLOC_NAME ) == 0)
{
- replaced_sopatt = VG_(strdup)("m_redir.rnnD.1", "*");
+ replaced_sopatt = dinfo_strdup("m_redir.rnnD.1", "*");
demangled_sopatt = replaced_sopatt;
isGlobal = True;
}
@@ -640,6 +640,14 @@
spec->mark = False; /* not significant */
spec->done = False; /* not significant */
specList = spec;
+ /* The demangler is the owner of the demangled_sopatt memory,
+ unless it was replaced. In this case, we have to free the
+ replace_sopatt(==demangled_sopatt). We can free it,
+ because it was dinfo_strup-ed into spec->from_sopatt. */
+ if (replaced_sopatt != NULL) {
+ vg_assert(demangled_sopatt == replaced_sopatt);
+ dinfo_free(replaced_sopatt);
+ }
}
free_symname_array(names_init, &twoslots[0]);
}
|