From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Martin Liška <mliska(at)suse(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Code refactoring related to -fsanitize=use-after-scope |
Date: | 2016-02-15 19:20:02 |
Message-ID: | 14147.1455564002@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2016-02-15 14:37:28 +0100, Martin Lika wrote:
>> I've been currently working on support of -sanitize=use-after-scope in the GCC compiler and
>> I decided to use postgresql as my test-case. The sanitation poisons every stack variable at the
>> very beginning of a function, unpoisons a variable at the beginning of scope definition and finally
>> poisons the variable again at the end of scope.
> Generally sounds like a good check.
>> Following patch fixes issues seen by the sanitizer. Hope it's acceptable?
>> With the patch applied, ASAN (with the new sanitization) works fine.
> But I'm not immediately seing why this is necessary? Is this about
> battling a false positive?
I bet a nickel that this is triggered by the goto leading into those
variables' scope ("goto process_inner_tuple" at line 2038 in HEAD).
That probably bypasses the "unpoison" step.
However, doesn't this represent a bug in the sanitizer rather than
anything we should change in Postgres? There is no rule in C that
you can't execute such a goto, especially not if there is no
initialization of those variables.
If you can think of a reasonable refactoring that gets rid of the need
for that goto, I'd be for that, because it's certainly unsightly.
But I don't think it's wrong, and I don't think that the proposed patch
is any improvement from a structured-programming standpoint.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-02-15 19:23:14 | Re: Remove or weaken hints about "effective resolution of sleep delays is 10 ms"? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-15 19:02:41 | Re: xlc atomics |