[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:08:39 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Tobias Koch <tobias.koch@...terra.com>
Cc: musl <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: Memory management problem?
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 05:48:08PM +0000, Tobias Koch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have (cross) compiled a chroot out of Debian testing sources but
> with musl and busybox at the core. The target is
> x86_64-cross-linux-musl. Now that I got to the point where I can
> actually run some builds inside the chroot itself, I noticed that
> flex segfaults on startup. In the flex sources this snippet is
> executed:
>
> num_to_alloc = 1; /* After all that talk, this was set to 1 anyways.... */
> (yy_buffer_stack) = (struct yy_buffer_state**) yyalloc(num_to_alloc * sizeof(struct yy_buffer_state*));
>
> if ( ! (yy_buffer_stack) )
> YY_FATAL_ERROR( "out of dynamic memory in yyensure_buffer_stack()" );
>
> memset((*yy_buffer_stack), 0, num_to_alloc * sizeof(struct yy_buffer_state*));
>
> The memset is optimized away, because GCC understands that the pointer target is just one native word and does a
>
> => 0x0000000000401c7e <+64>:64movq $0x0,(%rax)
>
> instead. Strace shows the following output:
>
> execve("/tools/bin/flex", ["flex"], [/* 18 vars */]) = 0
> arch_prctl(ARCH_SET_FS, 0x7f87ee4d5b28) = 0
> set_tid_address(0x7f87ee4d5b60) = 18855
> mprotect(0x7f87ee4d2000, 4096, PROT_READ) = 0
> mprotect(0x63f000, 4096, PROT_READ) = 0
> brk(NULL) = 0x1cd4000
> brk(0x1cd6000) = 0x1cd6000
> brk(0x1cd7000) = 0x1cd7000
> brk(0x1cd8000) = 0x1cd8000
> brk(0x1cda000) = 0x1cda000
> brk(0x1cdc000) = 0x1cdc000
> brk(0x1cde000) = 0x1cde000
> brk(0x1ce0000) = 0x1ce0000
> brk(0x1ce2000) = 0x1ce2000
> brk(0x1ce4000) = 0x1ce4000
> brk(0x1ce6000) = 0x1ce6000
> brk(0x1ce8000) = 0x1ce8000
> brk(0x1cea000) = 0x1cea000
> brk(0x1cec000) = 0x1cec000
> brk(0x1cef000) = 0x1cef000
> brk(0x1cf0000) = 0x1cf0000
> brk(0x1cf1000) = 0x1cf1000
> brk(0x1cf2000) = 0x1cf2000
> brk(0x1cf3000) = 0x1cf3000
> brk(0x1cf4000) = 0x1cf4000
> brk(0x1cf6000) = 0x1cf6000
> brk(0x1cf8000) = 0x1cf8000
> --- SIGSEGV {si_signo=SIGSEGV, si_code=SEGV_MAPERR, si_addr=0xffffffffee4d6d60} ---
> +++ killed by SIGSEGV +++
> Segmentation fault
>
> I'm not sure, if there is a problem with musl or some sort of
> optimization problem with GCC. If I compile either musl or flex
> without optimizations, the problem goes away. I have tried version
> 1.1.16 and git master.
>
> Any hints on how I could get to the bottom of this, would be greatly
> appreciated.
Judging from the address 0xffffffffee4d6d60, which is in kernel
address range, it looks like a pointer was truncated to 32 bits then
"sign-extended" back to 64. I suspect you have a missing declaration
(possibly due to missing include file) for some function that returns
a pointer and gcc is idiotically assuming it returns int and still
compiling rather than producing an error. Fix this by adding
-Werror=implicit-function-declaration to your CFLAGS; it should
pinpoint the location of the error.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
