From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id D4F2E385E015; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 02:06:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D4F2E385E015
From: "tromey at sourceware dot org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug gdb/25479] AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow in
 lookup_minimal_symbol_by_pc_name
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 02:06:41 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tromey at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-25479-4717-uJ7TfbpRtM@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-25479-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-25479-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gdb-prs mailing list <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/options/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-prs/>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 02:06:41 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D25479

--- Comment #8 from Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> ---
(In reply to Christian Biesinger from comment #7)
> (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #5)
> > I've looked at it a little.  I tend to think it is a pre-existing
> > bug.  I suspect Address Sanitizer doesn't understand how to examine
> > objects allocated on an obstack (neither does valgrind...), which is
> > why this was never detected.
>=20
> Offtopic, but Valgrind can be taught this:
> http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/mc-manual.html#mc-manual.mempools
> I've been meaning to look into that.

Yeah, me too.  We also use a similar thing, "objalloc", via BFD
(obstack was deemed too heavy, lol, by someone in ancient times).
I imagine marking that up would reveal all the lurking BFD bugs.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=