* [Bug network/14687] valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c
2012-10-08 22:50 [Bug network/14687] New: valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
@ 2012-10-08 22:51 ` timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
2012-10-23 9:17 ` siddhesh at redhat dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com @ 2012-10-08 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14687
Tim Pepper <timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |timothy.c.pepper at linux
| |dot intel.com
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug network/14687] valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c
2012-10-08 22:50 [Bug network/14687] New: valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
2012-10-08 22:51 ` [Bug network/14687] " timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
@ 2012-10-23 9:17 ` siddhesh at redhat dot com
2012-10-24 21:18 ` timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: siddhesh at redhat dot com @ 2012-10-23 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14687
Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |siddhesh at redhat dot com
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com> 2012-10-23 09:17:24 UTC ---
It's a spurious warning by valgrind since relevant fields are initialized
correctly. It does not make sense to add cruft just to make valgrind happy.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug network/14687] valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c
2012-10-08 22:50 [Bug network/14687] New: valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
2012-10-08 22:51 ` [Bug network/14687] " timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
2012-10-23 9:17 ` siddhesh at redhat dot com
@ 2012-10-24 21:18 ` timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
2012-10-25 2:01 ` siddhesh at redhat dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com @ 2012-10-24 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14687
--- Comment #2 from Tim Pepper <timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com> 2012-10-24 21:18:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It's a spurious warning by valgrind since relevant fields are initialized
> correctly. It does not make sense to add cruft just to make valgrind happy.
I can see that assessment.
But it is also a spurious warning that given the code path many many many
developers will have to see, worry about, spend time analyzing, and finally be
able to mark off their list of potential sources for whatever oddity they were
debugging once they've figured out what glibc is doing, and then they add a
valgrind suppression to their codebase. That leads to a lot of extra work
glibc causes other developers and leads to cruft in their codebases. Worst
case the glibc code evolves somehow to actually use the uninitialized fields
and rather than valgrind-using developers helping catch this, they've
suppressed it already at their end. This is not positive for overall distro
supportability and maintenance.
If the memset is cruft, the fields unused in this code path are cruft. Would
you find more acceptable the patch to differentiate the data structures used in
the send and receive paths, along with all the associated code changes to the
places that would need to use the new data structures?
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug network/14687] valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c
2012-10-08 22:50 [Bug network/14687] New: valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-24 21:18 ` timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
@ 2012-10-25 2:01 ` siddhesh at redhat dot com
2012-10-25 2:11 ` law at redhat dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: siddhesh at redhat dot com @ 2012-10-25 2:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14687
--- Comment #3 from Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com> 2012-10-25 02:01:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> glibc causes other developers and leads to cruft in their codebases. Worst
> case the glibc code evolves somehow to actually use the uninitialized fields
> and rather than valgrind-using developers helping catch this, they've
> suppressed it already at their end. This is not positive for overall distro
> supportability and maintenance.
In this particular case, something like this happening is unlikely because of
the specific way in which the code works. It is interface code between the
kernel and glibc, where the kernel initializes the uninitialized values. One
could argue that initializing these values would mask a kernel bug.
> If the memset is cruft, the fields unused in this code path are cruft. Would
> you find more acceptable the patch to differentiate the data structures used in
> the send and receive paths, along with all the associated code changes to the
> places that would need to use the new data structures?
I personally find any addition of code to this path unacceptable because it is
unnecessary. If you are looking for consensus in the glibc community, then you
can post your patch on the libc-alpha mailing list. Please follow the
guidelines given in this link to post:
http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug network/14687] valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c
2012-10-08 22:50 [Bug network/14687] New: valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-25 2:01 ` siddhesh at redhat dot com
@ 2012-10-25 2:11 ` law at redhat dot com
2014-04-29 7:54 ` brooks at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-17 4:05 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: law at redhat dot com @ 2012-10-25 2:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14687
law at redhat dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #4 from law at redhat dot com 2012-10-25 02:11:15 UTC ---
Tim,
Valgrind has a way for dealing with false positives of this nature;
specifically the suppressions need updating to handle this case. This really
should be dealt with by the valgrind maintainers.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug network/14687] valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c
2012-10-08 22:50 [Bug network/14687] New: valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-25 2:11 ` law at redhat dot com
@ 2014-04-29 7:54 ` brooks at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-17 4:05 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: brooks at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-04-29 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14687
Brooks Moses <brooks at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |brooks at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Brooks Moses <brooks at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Actually, for the record it looks like this was considered a bug in valgrind,
on grounds that it's mishandling the syscall, and fixed there:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=315441
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug network/14687] valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c
2012-10-08 22:50 [Bug network/14687] New: valgrind warning of uninitialised byte(s) in res_send.c timothy.c.pepper at linux dot intel.com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2014-04-29 7:54 ` brooks at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-06-17 4:05 ` fweimer at redhat dot com
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: fweimer at redhat dot com @ 2014-06-17 4:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14687
Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |security-
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread