[Release-testers] [cfe-dev] [5.0.0 Release] Release Candidate 1 tagged
Hans Wennborg via Release-testers
release-testers at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jul 31 16:45:54 PDT 2017
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2017, at 19:26, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote:
>>> On 27 Jul 2017, at 00:41, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> 5.0.0-rc1 has just been tagged.
>>>> Please build, test and upload binaries to the sftp. Let me know if
>>>> there are any issues.
>>> Built and tested rc1. Test failures on amd64-freebsd10:
>>> FAIL: LLVM-Unit :: ExecutionEngine/Orc/./OrcJITTests/DummyRPC.TestClearHandlers (1346 of 38616)
>>> FAIL: AddressSanitizer-Unit :: ./Asan-i386-inline-Test/AddressSanitizer.DoubleFreeTest (2480 of 38616)
>>> FAIL: AddressSanitizer-Unit :: ./Asan-i386-inline-Test/AddressSanitizer.ReallocFreedPointerTest (2505 of 38616)
>>> FAIL: AddressSanitizer-Unit :: ./Asan-i386-inline-Test/AddressSanitizer.UseThenFreeThenUseTest (2542 of 38616)
>>> FAIL: AddressSanitizer-Unit :: ./Asan-i386-inline-Test/AddressSanitizer.WrongFreeTest (2546 of 38616)
>> Do we know what's up with all of these ASan failures? Is there a bug for it?
> I spent a limited amount of debugging on it, but the common problem is that on i386 (aka 32-bit x86) all programs compiled with -fsanitize=address now die with:
> ==11122==AddressSanitizer CHECK failed: /usr/src/contrib/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_poisoning.cc:36 "((AddrIsAlignedByGranularity(addr))) != (0)" (0x0, 0x0)
> #0 0x806f163 in __asan::AsanCheckFailed(char const*, int, char const, unsigned long long, unsigned long long) (/share/dim/src/misc/hw+0x806f163)
> #1 0x805dce3 in __sanitizer::CheckFailed(char const*, int, char const, unsigned long long, unsigned long long) (/share/dim/src/misc/hw+0x805dce3)
> #2 0x80dfc65 in __asan::PoisonShadow(unsigned long, unsigned long, unsigned char) (/share/dim/src/misc/hw+0x80dfc65)
> #3 0x80696dd in __asan::AsanThread::Init(void) (/share/dim/src/misc/hw+0x80696dd)
> #4 0x806997f in __asan::AsanThread::ThreadStart(unsigned long, __sanitizer::atomic_uintptr_t*) (/share/dim/src/misc/hw+0x806997f)
> #5 0x806ecf3 in __asan::AsanInitInternal(void) (/share/dim/src/misc/hw+0x806ecf3)
> #6 0x8092785 in clock_gettime (/share/dim/src/misc/hw+0x8092785)
> When I put some printfs in there, it showed that the expected address granularity is 8, but the address to be checked was aligned on 4 bytes:
> DBG: addr=0x284429f4, granularity=8
> Tracing back the definitions, I found:
> #define SHADOW_GRANULARITY (1ULL << SHADOW_SCALE)
> #define SHADOW_SCALE kDefaultShadowScale
> static const u64 kDefaultShadowScale = 3;
> So this seems to be hardcoded. There is a similar declaration in llvm's lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer.cpp.
> I know that it *did* work at some point in the past, but it got broken in recent history. I will have to do some archeology to figure out what happened.
> Does anybody know whether the shadow granularity was different at some point?
Kostya, does this ring any bells for you?
More information about the Release-testers