From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS17314 8.43.84.0/22 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RDNS_DYNAMIC,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB4F61F8C6 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 00:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23F23982C85 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 00:07:55 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D23F23982C85 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1625789275; bh=TTKUyMHg6VG007VSDVwoBr7VU5BX4NGy1IwcoJprTIs=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=iQK3+JdMYeS7C45B3kJS4u+3u19WaRuTWL3cd7gpmSbF/gR+MZqmg2nkt7b8t7CNE HJPY9hXr18KrBDxqdoM0FKv30uce1Kj0Acrrt/Dh8wsjtyVdROn2f9SRFaTTDx+/ya OGdziH3UuPiS45dilZuI/WAyXArfDKDf7py2Qkxc= Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD0733858018 for ; Fri, 9 Jul 2021 00:07:35 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org DD0733858018 Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id 22-20020a17090a0c16b0290164a5354ad0so7224630pjs.2 for ; Thu, 08 Jul 2021 17:07:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TTKUyMHg6VG007VSDVwoBr7VU5BX4NGy1IwcoJprTIs=; b=bKWocP5a6G5yT+YCAX7AqHgA0bbVgTitXlQL9LR/HtsCms50olOqel5EhdMszVxlK9 V6ZnWtIkZE1EN/Hf4EPUs+9xo/8denMnVWCQZr/AulRtgGqSPvZnq7BKom+EzUc+vqx9 fqq/sjzX0S0QWRFCKeStctAEbffWt1PbnCAWNGabeRqj/8qE7jKbrjM9t/9T4j+pehq1 MCPmMLce6OufJ+Li42/UVG5qZOFwmeNmKf2pkL/xQXsqtGbkxAxc6AhQc3HNqKYohOtM mJ2H3J8Onp5DgHUlbXWe4EQZrYftd6FgTKqrXA/2dMauwRc4fl1CXx6wID0SPwae9XA5 CqBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ed4xq5IdxGJCz8Cw0ZDPD3/VA96AYCrkn6J8pulxOE/kgRTJM pQ/CwiMh2R+4nWEPwvaYbtoqK+AayrBBbopsUVQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwkVFwjNt/QMPBNO2/cMYv24YubgUGODBAfAKdevAf5NgrhzROqQQtA6dKnoX1ULXDL+I2MBZNtR0GFUYhqYZA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:6be6:: with SMTP id w93mr16435489pjj.154.1625789254864; Thu, 08 Jul 2021 17:07:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210702023546.3081774-1-siddhesh@sourceware.org> <20210702023546.3081774-3-siddhesh@sourceware.org> <0270d99b-3a15-09d2-7fa9-c9ecf2591d8f@gotplt.org> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 17:06:59 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/10] Add mcheck tests to malloc To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: "H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha" Reply-To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Stefan Liebler , GNU C Library Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 4:37 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 8:54 AM Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > > > On 7/6/21 8:20 PM, Stefan Liebler via Libc-alpha wrote: > > > Hi Siddhesh, > > > > > > starting with this commit, malloc/tst-realloc-mcheck fails if build with > > > gcc 7.5 on s390x: > > > Error: realloc (NULL, 0) returned NULL. > > > > > > With gcc 7.5: > > > p = realloc (NULL, 0); > > > realloc is really called, which is using reallochook, which always > > > returns NULL: > > > static void * > > > reallochook (void *ptr, size_t size, const void *caller) > > > { > > > if (size == 0) > > > { > > > freehook (ptr, caller); > > > return NULL; > > > } > > > > > > With e.g. gcc 9.1: > > > malloc(0) is called, which is using mallochook. It is using > > > hdr = (struct hdr *) malloc (sizeof (struct hdr) + size + 1); > > > ... > > > return (void *) (hdr + 1); > > > => != NULL > > > > > > Can you please have a look? And perhaps also filter out this test? > > > > Thanks, that is an mcheck bug that gcc seems to have masked. I'll push > > a patch filter it out. I'll also need to update my hooks patch to fix > > this bug in mcheck. > > > > Thanks, > > Siddhesh > > It also caused: > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28068 > > on x32. mcheck.c doesn't take MALLOC_ALIGNMENT into account. Will it be removed or fixed? -- H.J.