[Bug 28756] New: ws2_32/tests/sock.ok: uninitialised value created in test_events(), used in get_cached_fd()?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28756 Bug #: 28756 Summary: ws2_32/tests/sock.ok: uninitialised value created in test_events(), used in get_cached_fd()? Product: Wine Version: 1.3.30 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: winsock AssignedTo: wine-bugs(a)winehq.org ReportedBy: dank(a)kegel.com Classification: Unclassified Running "make sock.ok" in ws2_32/tests, valgrind complains: Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) at get_cached_fd (server.c:506, 508, 510, 511) by server_get_unix_fd (server.c:551) by wine_server_handle_to_fd (server.c:636) by WS2_recv_base (socket.c:751) by WSARecv (socket.c:5662) by recv_thread (sock.c:4045) Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation at test_events (sock.c:3453) ... Syscall param write(buf) points to uninitialised byte(s) at ??? (syscall-template.S:82) by wine_server_call (server.c:288) by server_get_unix_fd (server.c:557) by wine_server_handle_to_fd (server.c:636) by WS2_recv_base (socket.c:751) by WSARecv (socket.c:5662) by recv_thread (sock.c:4045) Address 0x7f42e7c8 is on thread 1's stack Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation at test_events (sock.c:3453) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28756 Bruno Jesus <00cpxxx(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |00cpxxx(a)gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Bruno Jesus <00cpxxx(a)gmail.com> 2011-10-20 18:08:00 CDT --- This is really weird. The get_cached_fd function is inline and there is no way that this variable is left uninitialised. Maybe setting entry = 0 will silence the valgrind warning, but should produce a new "dead assignment" warning. There are 3 different functions using the exact same approach: get_cache_fd, server_remove_fd_from_cache and add_fd_to_cache. It seems that the compiler thought it was better to not inline the function or valgind is checking the source and is ignoring the inline attribute. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28756 --- Comment #2 from Bruno Jesus <00cpxxx(a)gmail.com> 2011-10-20 18:24:08 CDT --- I meant the get_cached_fd and the other 2 function uses an inline function called handle_to_index. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28756 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |download, source, testcase, | |valgrind --- Comment #3 from Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> --- Still in wine-1.7.19-70-gd6a59f7 ==20959== Thread 2: ==20959== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) ==20959== at 0x7BC8162D: get_cached_fd (server.c:861) ==20959== by 0x7BC817C6: server_get_unix_fd (server.c:906) ==20959== by 0x7BC81A9F: wine_server_handle_to_fd (server.c:991) ==20959== by 0x50A6B62: get_sock_fd (socket.c:840) ==20959== by 0x50B62C1: WS2_recv_base (socket.c:6545) ==20959== by 0x50B61D4: WSARecv (socket.c:6522) ==20959== by 0x4F73049: recv_thread (sock.c:5363) ==20959== by 0x7BC870D3: ??? (signal_i386.c:2571) ==20959== by 0x7BC8711C: call_thread_func (signal_i386.c:2630) ==20959== by 0x7BC870B1: ??? (signal_i386.c:2571) ==20959== by 0x7BC8E4F8: start_thread (thread.c:428) ==20959== by 0x421EF92: start_thread (pthread_create.c:309) ==20959== by 0x43237ED: clone (clone.S:129) ==20959== Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation ==20959== at 0x4F6F0F5: test_events (sock.c:4532) ==20959== -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28756 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |austinenglish(a)gmail.com -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28756 --- Comment #4 from Bruno Jesus <00cpxxx(a)gmail.com> --- Created attachment 48730 --> https://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=48730 patch I think the function is doing cleanup before the thread is able to test the socket, this patch may help. Please, test it. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28756 --- Comment #5 from Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Bruno Jesus from comment #4)
Created attachment 48730 [details] patch
I think the function is doing cleanup before the thread is able to test the socket, this patch may help. Please, test it.
Yup, works here, thanks. I noticed that my patch for https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335441 avoids the valgrind issue without using your patch. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28756 Bruno Jesus <00cpxxx(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed by SHA1| |e3998e39886cbdca012af937b9e | |fe081b83c18a7 Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Bruno Jesus <00cpxxx(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Austin English from comment #5)
Yup, works here, thanks.
I noticed that my patch for https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335441 avoids the valgrind issue without using your patch.
Your patch is still valid to make valgrind behave better but this bug was really a wine issue. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28756 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #7 from Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> --- Closing bugs fixed in 1.7.21. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
participants (1)
-
wine-bugs＠winehq.org