[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: building/using address-sanitizer-enabled emacs?

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: building/using address-sanitizer-enabled emacs?
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 19:06:57 +0300

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 07:46:49 -0700
> On 05/16/2017 07:24 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > isn't it strange that none of the changes you made is
> > related to starting a sub-process, which was where the original report
> > came from?
> Although Jim's original report mentioned process.c, the referenced code 
> was in server_accept_connection (not starting a sub-process), and that 
> code was indeed affected by one of the recent changes I made (commit 
> be9e60fc3c43cc49cc5d749924c3e96737ae297c).

I think we might be talking about 2 different reports.  I meant the
one here:


The reproducing recipe given there by Jim was this:

  echo foo |gpg -c > foo.gpg
  src/temacs -q foo.gpg 2> err

and I guessed that visiting foo.gpg starts gpg as a subprocess.  The
backtrace posted by Jim, viz.:

  ==24522==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address
  0x7ffd5cc4d928 at pc 0x00000073fd76 bp 0x7ffd5cc4d910 sp
  READ of size 8 at 0x7ffd5cc4d928 thread T0
      #0 0x73fd75 in PSEUDOVECTORP /home/j/w/co/emacs/src/lisp.h:1454
      #1 0x7438c9 in BUFFERP /home/j/w/co/emacs/src/buffer.h:887
      #2 0x9c64b6 in call_process /home/j/w/co/emacs/src/callproc.c:702
      #3 0x9c41db in Fcall_process /home/j/w/co/emacs/src/callproc.c:270

seems to confirm my guess.  Did I miss something?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]