Re: [boost] Test failures on sanitize memory - are they caused by lightweight_test?

Subject: Re: [boost] Test failures on sanitize memory - are they caused by lightweight_test?
From: Ben Pope (benpope81_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-21 06:43:33

On Friday, March 13, 2015 03:09 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> I see a lot of reports that a similar to this one yet [1].
>
> Uninitialized bytes in __interceptor_strlen at offset 88 inside
> [0x60c00000efa0, 89)
> ==7257== WARNING: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value
>      #0 0x7f46edfb1de2 in
> std::logic_error::logic_error(std::__1::basic_string<char,
> std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> > const&)
> (/usr/lib/libc++.so.1+0x8dde2)
>      #1 0x7f46eeddaf64 in
> boost::future_error::future_error(boost::system::error_code)
> /home/ben/development/boost/test/build/boost_root/status/../boost/thread/futures/future_error.hpp:28:7
>
>      #2 0x7f46eeddefc8 in boost::broken_promise::broken_promise()
> /home/ben/development/boost/test/build/boost_root/status/../boost/thread/futures/future_error.hpp:51:9
>
>      #3 0x7f46eedcdb02 in boost::promise<int>::~promise()
> /home/ben/development/boost/test/build/boost_root/status/../boost/thread/future.hpp:1951:63
>
>      #4 0x7f46eedc8120 in main
> /home/ben/development/boost/test/build/boost_root/status/../libs/thread/test/sync/futures/shared_future/move_assign_pass.cpp:39:3
>
>      #5 0x7f46ecce0ec4 in __libc_start_main
> (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x21ec4)
>      #6 0x7f46eed7374c in _start
> (/home/ben/development/boost/test/build/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/thread/test/shared_future__move_asign_p.test/clang-linux-3.6~msan~c14_libc++/debug/address-model-64/architecture-x86/threading-multi/shared_future__move_asign_p+0x6974c)
>
>
> SUMMARY: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value ??:0
> std::logic_error::logic_error(std::__1::basic_string<char,
> std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> > const&)
> Exiting
>
> Does it corresponds to the same false positive?
> Have you reached to mask the PO false positive?

New results are up, this one seems to be cleared up by using the 
sanitised libc++.  I currently have no blacklist, I'll see what else 
needs looking at tomorrow, after the full run has completed.

Apologies for the delay.

Ben

> Vicente
>
> [1]
> http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/BenPope%20x86_64%20Ubuntu-boost-bin-v2-libs-thread-test-shared_future__move_asign_p-test-clang-linux-3-6~msan~c14_libc++-debug-address-model-64-architecture-x86-threading-multi.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>