Issue 12612: Valgrind suppressions - Python tracker (original) (raw)

Created on 2011-07-22 16:36 by Paul.Price, last changed 2022-04-11 14:57 by admin. This issue is now closed.

Messages (9)
msg140895 - (view)	Author: Paul Price (Paul.Price)	Date: 2011-07-22 16:36
I am running Python 2.7.1 under Valgrind 3.6.1 on a x86_64 GNU/Linux box. Valgrind is flagging errors that are not covered by the standard suppressions file (Misc/valgrind-python.supp; after uncommenting the part I'm supposed to), e.g.: ==5804== Use of uninitialised value of size 8 ==5804== at 0x4EBA956: PyObject_Free (obmalloc.c:958) ==5804== by 0x4E85D65: code_dealloc (codeobject.c:317) ==5804== by 0x4ECE23C: tupledealloc (tupleobject.c:220) ==5804== by 0x4E85E42: code_dealloc (codeobject.c:308) ==5804== by 0x4F3315D: load_source_module (import.c:1022) ==5804== by 0x4F33F7E: import_submodule (import.c:2596) ==5804== by 0x4F3420E: load_next (import.c:2416) ==5804== by 0x4F3484F: import_module_level (import.c:2137) ==5804== by 0x4F34DA3: PyImport_ImportModuleLevel (import.c:2189) ==5804== by 0x4F16ABE: builtin___import__ (bltinmodule.c:49) ==5804== by 0x4E6DA42: PyObject_Call (abstract.c:2529) ==5804== by 0x4F16F82: PyEval_CallObjectWithKeywords (ceval.c:3881) ==5804== Use of uninitialised value of size 8 ==5804== at 0x4EBA956: PyObject_Free (obmalloc.c:958) ==5804== by 0x4E85D65: code_dealloc (codeobject.c:317) ==5804== by 0x4F3315D: load_source_module (import.c:1022) ==5804== by 0x4F33F7E: import_submodule (import.c:2596) ==5804== by 0x4F3420E: load_next (import.c:2416) ==5804== by 0x4F3484F: import_module_level (import.c:2137) ==5804== by 0x4F34DA3: PyImport_ImportModuleLevel (import.c:2189) ==5804== by 0x4F16ABE: builtin___import__ (bltinmodule.c:49) ==5804== by 0x4E6DA42: PyObject_Call (abstract.c:2529) ==5804== by 0x4F16F82: PyEval_CallObjectWithKeywords (ceval.c:3881) ==5804== by 0x4F1ACD3: PyEval_EvalFrameEx (ceval.c:2332) ==5804== by 0x4F1F347: PyEval_EvalCodeEx (ceval.c:3252) etc. Perhaps the suppressions file covers only 32-bit machines, because if I add: { ADDRESS_IN_RANGE/Use of uninitialised value of size 8 Memcheck:Addr8 fun:PyObject_Free } { ADDRESS_IN_RANGE/Use of uninitialised value of size 8 Memcheck:Value8 fun:PyObject_Free } { ADDRESS_IN_RANGE/Use of uninitialised value of size 8 Memcheck:Addr8 fun:PyObject_Realloc } { ADDRESS_IN_RANGE/Use of uninitialised value of size 8 Memcheck:Value8 fun:PyObject_Realloc } (i.e., "Value8" instead of "Value4") then all is clear.
msg148715 - (view)	Author: Zhiping Deng (Zhiping.Deng)	Date: 2011-12-01 10:16
It works for me!
msg148730 - (view)	Author: Charles-François Natali (neologix) *	Date: 2011-12-01 17:50
Could you please provide a diff ? Also, they should probably be commented by default (as other obmalloc-related calls).
msg148733 - (view)	Author: Paul Price (Paul.Price)	Date: 2011-12-01 18:05
Here's the diff with the added sections commented out.
msg148800 - (view)	Author: Roundup Robot (python-dev)	Date: 2011-12-03 13:44
New changeset 3eb73f45a614 by Charles-François Natali in branch 'default': Issue #12612: Add some Valgrind suppressions for 64-bit machines. Patch by Paul http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3eb73f45a614
msg148801 - (view)	Author: Charles-François Natali (neologix) *	Date: 2011-12-03 13:45
Committed, thanks for the patch!
msg148809 - (view)	Author: Paul Price (Paul.Price)	Date: 2011-12-03 15:19
Welcome. Thank you!
msg254090 - (view)	Author: Marius Gedminas (mgedmin) *	Date: 2015-11-05 07:23
Could this fix be backported to the 2.7 branch as well?
msg254135 - (view)	Author: Roundup Robot (python-dev)	Date: 2015-11-05 19:42
New changeset 92dda5f00b0f by doko in branch '2.7': Issue #12612: Add some Valgrind suppressions for 64-bit machines. https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/92dda5f00b0f