Re: ☠ Buildbot (GNU Toolchain): elfutils - failed test (failure) (master)

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 11:54:33PM +0000, builder--- via Elfutils-devel wrote:
> A new failure has been detected on builder elfutils-fedora-s390x while building elfutils.
> 
> Full details are available at:
>     https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/43/builds/47
> 
> Build state: failed test (failure)
> Revision: 369c021c6eedae3665c1dbbaa4fc43afbbb698f4
> Worker: fedora-s390x
> Build Reason: (unknown)
> Blamelist: Di Chen <dichen@redhat.com>
> [...]
> - 7: make check ( failure )
>     Logs:
>         - stdio: https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/43/builds/47/steps/7/logs/stdio
>         - test-suite.log: https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/43/builds/47/steps/7/logs/test-suite_log

So that is in the one little addition I made:

-==3856043== Invalid read of size 1
-==3856043==    at 0x484EBE8: memrchr (vg_replace_strmem.c:1012)
-==3856043==    by 0x100FEDF: handle_dynamic (readelf.c:1909)
-==3856043==    by 0x102061D: print_dynamic (readelf.c:2013)
-==3856043==    by 0x102061D: process_elf_file (readelf.c:1034)
-==3856043==    by 0x1021FDB: process_dwflmod (readelf.c:818)
-==3856043==    by 0x4962BCF: dwfl_getmodules (dwfl_getmodules.c:86)
-==3856043==    by 0x100E175: process_file (readelf.c:926)
-==3856043==    by 0x1006A75: main (readelf.c:395)
-==3856043==  Address 0x56df358 is 24 bytes before a block of size 264 alloc'd
-==3856043==    at 0x484C002: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:1328)
-==3856043==    by 0x4A4EED9: elf_getdata_rawchunk (elf_getdata_rawchunk.c:173)
-==3856043==    by 0x1010621: get_dynscn_strtab (readelf.c:4958)
-==3856043==    by 0x1010621: handle_dynamic (readelf.c:1884)
-==3856043==    by 0x102061D: print_dynamic (readelf.c:2013)
-==3856043==    by 0x102061D: process_elf_file (readelf.c:1034)
-==3856043==    by 0x1021FDB: process_dwflmod (readelf.c:818)
-==3856043==    by 0x4962BCF: dwfl_getmodules (dwfl_getmodules.c:86)
-==3856043==    by 0x100E175: process_file (readelf.c:926)
-==3856043==    by 0x1006A75: main (readelf.c:395)

I am staring at the code, but don't immediately see which mistake I
made.  Maybe I should use d_val instead of d_ptr (but those are both
uint64_t so that shouldn't really matter).

Cheers,

Mark