On 30 November 2017 at 19:56, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Dennis Zhou <dennisszhou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Dmitry and Kees, >> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:10:41AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: >>> > Are we sure that structleak plugin is not at fault? If yes, then we >>> > need to report this to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ with instructions >>> > on how to build/use the plugin. >> >> I believe this is an issue with the structleak plugin and not gcc. The >> bug does not show up if you compile without >> GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL. >> >> It seems to be caused by the initializer not respecting the ASAN_MARK >> calls. Therefore, if an inlined function gets called from a for loop, >> the initializer code gets invoked bugging in the second iteration. Below >> is the tree dump for the structleak plugin from the reproducer in the >> previous email. In bb 2 of INIT_LIST_HEAD, the __u = {} is before the >> unpoison call. This is inlined in bb 3 of main. > > Ah-ha, okay. Thanks for the close examination. Ard, is this something > you have a few moment to take a look at? > I must admit that I am a bit out of my depth here. Also, I am quite sure this is a pre-existing issue with the plugin which is triggered more easily because it affects many more initializers. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
