[sanitizer] only lower the soft coresize limit in DisableCoreDumper

[Kostya Serebryany]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Stephan Bergmann <sbergman at redhat.com>
wrote:

> On 07/03/2014 10:06 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>
>> what's the reason?
>>
>
> As stated, "so that e.g. a spawned sub-[process;


Ah. That makes more sense!
Could you please add a test?
I think the best place would
be compiler-rt/test/sanitizer_common/TestCases/Linux




> sorry, typo in the original mail] could increase that limit again."  I
> needed this when debugging a scenario where a process built with
> -fsanitize=address spawns an "unrelated" process (not built with
> -fsanitize=address) and the easiest debug vector would have been to add a
> call to abort() at a certain place in the sub-process's code and afterwards
> analyze the corefile, if one could have been written.
>
> Stephan
>
>  On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Stephan Bergmann <sbergman at redhat.com
>> <mailto:sbergman at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     ...so that e.g. a spawned sub-thread could increase that limit again:
>>
>>         Index: lib/sanitizer_common/__sanitizer_posix_libcdep.cc
>>         ==============================__============================
>> ==__=======
>>         --- lib/sanitizer_common/__sanitizer_posix_libcdep.cc
>>         (revision 211695)
>>         +++ lib/sanitizer_common/__sanitizer_posix_libcdep.cc
>>
>>         (working copy)
>>         @@ -46,8 +46,10 @@
>>
>>           void DisableCoreDumper() {
>>             struct rlimit nocore;
>>         +  if (getrlimit(RLIMIT_CORE, &nocore) == -1) {
>>         +      nocore.rlim_max = 0;
>>         +  }
>>             nocore.rlim_cur = 0;
>>         -  nocore.rlim_max = 0;
>>             setrlimit(RLIMIT_CORE, &nocore);
>>           }
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140703/3a4aef8f/attachment.html>