Richard Salz wrote:
Yes, exactly my point. Until someone enhances valgrind, however,
something like this might work well:
{
RAND_bytes1
Memcheck: Value1
/* notused */
RAND_bytes
}
and repeat that four times with 2, 4, 8, 16 replacing the two 1's.
I betcha that catches almost all problems; at least within OpenSSL.
A "suppression rule" is not the same as the rule I'm referring to.
Suppressions work on the symptom what would otherwise be reported, to
suppress that report. So this means you have to supress EVERY stack
trace of the EVERY user of the data returned by RAND_xxxx(). As you can
imagine this just is not possible and like duck hunt at the fair ground.
So I agree with your general concept of valgrind needing a rule to learn
this particular case is correct, but it is not a "supression rule" and
I've never had any success with the approach you suggest as new cases
just keep on appearing and I keep adding rules and rules and rules. YYMV
Darryl
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
