Web lists-archives.com

Re: playing with MSan, was Re: [PATCH 0/3] fixes for running the test suite with --valgrind




On 10/04, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 07:41:54PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> 
> > I think using SANITIZE=memory would catch these, but it needs some
> > suppressions tuning. The weird "zlib reads uninitialized memory" error
> > is a problem (valgrind sees this, too, but we have suppressions).
> 
> I dug into this a little more. You can blacklist certain functions from
> getting MSan treatment, but that's not quite what we want. We want to
> mark bytes from certain _sources_ as being initialized, even if MSan
> doesn't agree.
> 
> And indeed, you can do that. As far as I can tell, MSan works by keeping
> a shadow map of memory and setting flags when it believes it has been
> initialized, and then checking that map when we make decisions based on
> the memory. But it can only do that if it instruments all writes. So the
> MSan documentation recommends that you build _everything_, including
> libraries, with it. Which obviously we don't do if we're using a system
> zlib. Or a system libc for that matter (though they intercept many
> common libc functions to handle this).
> 
> So one strategy is to "cheat" a bit at the library interfaces, and claim
> whatever they send us is properly initialized. The patch below tries
> that with zlib, and it does seem to work. It would fail to notice a real
> problem with any input we send _to_ the library (since the library isn't
> instrumented, and we claim that whatever comes out of it is legitimate).
> I could probably live with that.
> 
> But there are quite a few test failures that would still need
> investigating and annotating:
> 
>   - Certainly it's confused by looking at regmatch_t results from
>     regexec(). We can fix that by building with NO_REGEX. But pcre has
>     a similar problem.
> 
>   - Ditto curl and openssl, whose exit points would need annotations.
> 
>   - For some reason test-sigchain segfaults when it raise()s in the
>     signal handler and recurses. Not sure if this is an MSan bug or
>     what.
> 
> So I dunno. This approach is a _lot_ more convenient than trying to
> rebuild all the dependencies from scratch, and it runs way faster than
> valgrind.  It did find the cases that led to the patches in this
> series, and at least one more: if the lstat() at the end of
> entry.c:write_entry() fails, we write nonsense into the cache_entry.

Yeah valgrind found that one too, as I tried (and apparently failed :))
to explain in the cover letter.  I just haven't found the time yet to
actually try and go fix that one.

> I think we could probably get it to zero false positives without _too_
> much effort. I'll stop here for tonight, but I may pick it up again
> later (of course anybody else is welcome to fool around with it, too).
> 
> Below is the patch that let me run:
> 
>   make SANITIZE=memory CC=clang-6.0 NO_REGEX=1
> 
> and get a tractable number of errors.
> 
> -- >8 --
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index b143e4eea3..1da5c01211 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -1047,6 +1047,9 @@ endif
>  ifneq ($(filter leak,$(SANITIZERS)),)
>  BASIC_CFLAGS += -DSUPPRESS_ANNOTATED_LEAKS
>  endif
> +ifneq ($(filter memory,$(SANITIZERS)),)
> +BASIC_CFLAGS += -DENABLE_MSAN_UNPOISON
> +endif
>  endif
>  
>  ifndef sysconfdir
> diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h
> index cedad4d581..836a4c0b54 100644
> --- a/git-compat-util.h
> +++ b/git-compat-util.h
> @@ -1191,4 +1191,11 @@ extern void unleak_memory(const void *ptr, size_t len);
>  #define UNLEAK(var) do {} while (0)
>  #endif
>  
> +#ifdef ENABLE_MSAN_UNPOISON
> +#include <sanitizer/msan_interface.h>
> +#define msan_unpoison(ptr, len) __msan_unpoison(ptr, len)
> +#else
> +#define msan_unpoison(ptr, len) do {} while (0)
> +#endif
> +
>  #endif
> diff --git a/zlib.c b/zlib.c
> index 4223f1a8c5..5fa8f12507 100644
> --- a/zlib.c
> +++ b/zlib.c
> @@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ static void zlib_post_call(git_zstream *s)
>  	if (s->z.total_in != s->total_in + bytes_consumed)
>  		die("BUG: total_in mismatch");
>  
> +	msan_unpoison(s->next_out, bytes_produced);
> +
>  	s->total_out = s->z.total_out;
>  	s->total_in = s->z.total_in;
>  	s->next_in = s->z.next_in;