From: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
To: Igor Bogomazov <ygrex@ygrex.ru>
Cc: libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: return value buffer malloc()'ed vs alloca()'ed
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 17:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <525441E9.7080707@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131008101354.43baeeeb@ygrex-mac>
On 10/08/2013 06:13 PM, Igor Bogomazov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been trying to investigate valgrind warnings for a while and found
> an undocumented feature, please let me know if it is well-known.
>
> What I did.
>
> I modified a code given in «2.2 Simple Example» so that return value
> (rc), originally declared as (int), became an (int *)malloc(sizeof(int))
> so that it is resident in heap since that. Of cource, (&rc) replaced
> with (rc) later in the code.
>
> What I get.
>
> valgrind complaints about «Invalid write of size 8» while «Address
> 0x55ec040 is 0 bytes inside a block of size 4 alloc'd», it is exactly
> that allocated (rc) buffer.
>
> Notes.
>
> Allocating buffer for the return value using alloca() does the trick and
> makes valgrind silent.
>
> Further.
>
> I looked at x86/unix64.S, it is exactly the line:
> movq %rax, (%rdi)
> that causes the valgrind's warning (at .Lst_uint32)
>
> That is my question: is it necessary to allocate a buffer for the return
> value with alloca() and never with malloc()?
As far as I can see, libffi always writes a whole word into the rvalue:
.Lst_uint8:
movzbq %al, %rax
movq %rax, (%rdi)
ret
.align 2
.Lst_sint8:
movsbq %al, %rax
movq %rax, (%rdi)
ret
.align 2
.Lst_uint16:
movzwq %ax, %rax
movq %rax, (%rdi)
.align 2
...
This looks quite deliberate, but it is rather different from what the
documentation specifies:
RVALUE is a pointer to a chunk of memory that will hold the result
of the function call. This must be large enough to hold the
result and must be suitably aligned; it is the caller's
responsibility to ensure this
So it's definitely a bug, but I don't know whether it's a bug in libffi or
in its documentation.
Andrew.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-08 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-08 17:14 Igor Bogomazov
2013-10-08 17:30 ` Anthony Green
2013-10-08 17:36 ` Andrew Haley
2013-10-08 17:40 ` Anthony Green
2013-10-08 17:45 ` Andrew Haley
2013-10-09 5:09 ` Igor Bogomazov
2013-11-15 16:18 ` Broken tests in libffi testsuite Andrew Haley
2013-11-16 11:24 ` Alan Modra
2013-10-08 17:33 ` Andrew Haley [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=525441E9.7080707@redhat.com \
--to=aph@redhat.com \
--cc=libffi-discuss@sourceware.org \
--cc=ygrex@ygrex.ru \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).