Summary: | Don't call final_tidyup (__libc_freeres) on FatalSignal | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Developer tools] valgrind | Reporter: | Mark Wielaard <mark> |
Component: | general | Assignee: | Julian Seward <jseward> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | NOR | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Platform: | Other | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
Sentry Crash Report: |
Description
Mark Wielaard
2021-10-11 16:37:26 UTC
commit cf9ebf8313952caed53394498fe849251f477c97 Author: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> Date: Tue Oct 12 22:47:57 2021 +0200 coregrind: Don't call final_tidyup (__libc_freeres) on FatalSignal When a program gets a fatal signal (one it doesn't handle) valgrind terminates the program. Before termination it will try to call final_tidyup which tries to run __libc_freeres and __gnu_cxx::__freeres to get rid of some memory glibc or libstdc++ don't normally release. But when the program got the fatal signal in a critical section inside glibc it might leave the datastructures in a bad state and cause __libc_freeres to crash. This makes valgrind itself crash just before producing its own error summary, making the valgrind run unusable. A reproducer can found at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952836 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225994#c7 This reproducer is really a worse case scenario with multiple threads racing to get into the critical section that when interrupted will make __libc_freeres unable to cleanup. But it seems a good policy in general. If a program is terminated by a fatal signal instead of normal termination, it seems not having some of the glibc/libstdc++ resource cleaned up is an expected thing. https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=443605 |