Fix memory leak in printf_positional
Commit Message
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I think at that point it becomes easier to just use a generator script
>>> to write the test. Any objection to that?
>>
>> I don't object to that given an appropriate comment on why it is being
>> used.
>
> Agreed.
What's the appropriate place to put this comment?
2015-09-01 Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com>
[BZ #18872]
* stdio-common/Makefile (tst-printf-bz18872): New test.
(tst-printf-bz18872-mem.out): Likewise.
* stdio-common/tst-printf-bz18872.sh: Generate new test.
* stdio-common/vfprintf.c: Fix memory leaks.
Comments
Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com> writes:
> @@ -76,6 +82,13 @@ $(objpfx)tst-unbputc.out: tst-unbputc.sh $(objpfx)tst-unbputc
> $(objpfx)tst-printf.out: tst-printf.sh $(objpfx)tst-printf
> $(SHELL) $< $(common-objpfx) '$(test-program-prefix)'; \
> $(evaluate-test)
> +
> +$(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.c: tst-printf-bz18872.sh
> + rm -f $@
> + $(BASH) $^ > $@
Please make that atomic by using a temporary file.
> +for j in $(seq 1 $n_args); do
> + if [[ $(($j % 10)) == 1 ]]; then printf "\n"; fi
> + printf '"%%%d$s" ' $j
> +done
> +
> +printf ' "%%%d$s",' $(($n_args + 1))
> +
> +for j in $(seq 1 $n_args); do
> + if [[ $(($j % 10)) == 1 ]]; then printf "\n"; fi
> + printf '"a", '
> +done
Since you are already using bash you can also use `for ((j = 1; j <=
n_args; j++))'.
Andreas.
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I think at that point it becomes easier to just use a generator script
> >>> to write the test. Any objection to that?
> >>
> >> I don't object to that given an appropriate comment on why it is being
> >> used.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> What's the appropriate place to put this comment?
I'd suggest in the Makefile.
> +# Copyright (C) 1999-2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is a new test; I'd expect just 2015 unless closely based on an
existing test.
On 09/03/2015 01:48 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I think at that point it becomes easier to just use a generator script
>>>> to write the test. Any objection to that?
>>>
>>> I don't object to that given an appropriate comment on why it is being
>>> used.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> What's the appropriate place to put this comment?
>
> 2015-09-01 Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
> Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com>
>
> [BZ #18872]
> * stdio-common/Makefile (tst-printf-bz18872): New test.
> (tst-printf-bz18872-mem.out): Likewise.
> * stdio-common/tst-printf-bz18872.sh: Generate new test.
> * stdio-common/vfprintf.c: Fix memory leaks.
This looks good to me. The comment in tst-printf-bz18872.sh is sufficient for me.
Cheers,
Carlos.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote:
> Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com> writes:
>> +$(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.c: tst-printf-bz18872.sh
>> + rm -f $@
>> + $(BASH) $^ > $@
>
> Please make that atomic by using a temporary file.
Sorry, I didn't understand that comment.
Do you mean that I should have a rule like this:
$(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.out: tst-printf-bz18872.sh
$(BASH) $^ | $(CC) ... -o $(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872 -xc -
$(test-something-or-other)
or something else?
(Figuring out the commands for that rule gives me a pause.)
Thanks,
Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote:
>> Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com> writes:
>
>>> +$(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.c: tst-printf-bz18872.sh
>>> + rm -f $@
>>> + $(BASH) $^ > $@
>>
>> Please make that atomic by using a temporary file.
>
> Sorry, I didn't understand that comment.
The target must always be either complete or absent. A redirection is
not atomic.
Andreas.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote:
>> Sorry, I didn't understand that comment.
>
> The target must always be either complete or absent. A redirection is
> not atomic.
Understood.
Thanks,
@@ -57,17 +57,23 @@ tests := tstscanf test_rdwr test-popen tstgetln test-fseek \
bug19 bug19a tst-popen2 scanf13 scanf14 scanf15 bug20 bug21 bug22 \
scanf16 scanf17 tst-setvbuf1 tst-grouping bug23 bug24 \
bug-vfprintf-nargs tst-long-dbl-fphex tst-fphex-wide tst-sprintf3 \
- bug25 tst-printf-round bug23-2 bug23-3 bug23-4 bug26 tst-fmemopen3
+ bug25 tst-printf-round bug23-2 bug23-3 bug23-4 bug26 tst-fmemopen3 \
+ tst-printf-bz18872
test-srcs = tst-unbputc tst-printf
ifeq ($(run-built-tests),yes)
tests-special += $(objpfx)tst-unbputc.out $(objpfx)tst-printf.out \
+ $(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872-mem.out \
$(objpfx)tst-setvbuf1-cmp.out
+generated += tst-printf-bz18872.c tst-printf-bz18872.mtrace \
+ tst-printf-bz18872-mem.out
endif
include ../Rules
+tst-printf-bz18872-ENV = MALLOC_TRACE=$(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.mtrace
+
ifeq ($(run-built-tests),yes)
$(objpfx)tst-unbputc.out: tst-unbputc.sh $(objpfx)tst-unbputc
$(SHELL) $< $(common-objpfx) '$(test-program-prefix)'; \
@@ -76,6 +82,13 @@ $(objpfx)tst-unbputc.out: tst-unbputc.sh $(objpfx)tst-unbputc
$(objpfx)tst-printf.out: tst-printf.sh $(objpfx)tst-printf
$(SHELL) $< $(common-objpfx) '$(test-program-prefix)'; \
$(evaluate-test)
+
+$(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.c: tst-printf-bz18872.sh
+ rm -f $@
+ $(BASH) $^ > $@
+$(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872-mem.out: $(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.out
+ $(common-objpfx)malloc/mtrace $(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.mtrace > $@; \
+ $(evaluate-test)
endif
CFLAGS-vfprintf.c = -Wno-uninitialized
new file mode 100755
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+# Copyright (C) 1999-2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+# This file is part of the GNU C Library.
+
+# The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+# modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
+# License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
+# version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+
+# The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
+# Lesser General Public License for more details.
+
+# You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
+# License along with the GNU C Library; if not, see
+# <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
+
+# To test BZ #18872, we need a printf() with 10K arguments.
+# Such a printf could be generated with non-trivial macro
+# application, but it's simpler to generate the test source
+# via this script.
+
+n_args=10000
+
+cat <<'EOF'
+#include <stdio.h>
+#include <mcheck.h>
+
+/*
+ Compile do_test without optimization: GCC 4.9/5.0/6.0 takes a long time
+ to build this source. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67396 */
+#pragma GCC push_options
+#pragma GCC optimize ("-O0")
+
+int do_test (void)
+{
+ mtrace ();
+ printf (
+EOF
+
+for j in $(seq 1 $n_args); do
+ if [[ $(($j % 10)) == 1 ]]; then printf "\n"; fi
+ printf '"%%%d$s" ' $j
+done
+
+printf ' "%%%d$s",' $(($n_args + 1))
+
+for j in $(seq 1 $n_args); do
+ if [[ $(($j % 10)) == 1 ]]; then printf "\n"; fi
+ printf '"a", '
+done
+
+printf '"\\n");'
+
+
+cat <<'EOF'
+
+ return 0;
+}
+#pragma GCC pop_options
+
+#define TEST_FUNCTION do_test ()
+#include "../test-skeleton.c"
+
+EOF
@@ -2091,6 +2091,10 @@ printf_positional (_IO_FILE *s, const CHAR_T *format, int readonly_format,
- specs[nspecs_done].end_of_fmt);
}
all_done:
+ if (__glibc_unlikely (specs_malloced))
+ free (specs);
+ if (__glibc_unlikely (args_malloced != NULL))
+ free (args_malloced);
if (__glibc_unlikely (workstart != NULL))
free (workstart);
return done;