On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 01:24:06AM +, Piotr Sikora via nginx-devel wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Piotr Sikora
> # Date 1708977640 0
> # Mon Feb 26 20:00:40 2024 +
> # Branch patch015
> # Node ID f58bc1041ebca635517b919d58b49923bf24f76d
> # Parent 570e97dddeeddb79c71587aa8a10
> On 28 Feb 2024, at 05:23, Piotr Sikora via nginx-devel
> wrote:
>
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Piotr Sikora
> # Date 1708977638 0
> # Mon Feb 26 20:00:38 2024 +
> # Branch patch014
> # Node ID 570e97dddeeddb79c71587aa8a10150b64404beb
> # Parent cdc173477ea99fd6c952a85e5cd11db664
details: https://hg.nginx.org/njs/rev/f632fe16ba05
branches:
changeset: 2303:f632fe16ba05
user: Dmitry Volyntsev
date: Tue Mar 19 21:05:51 2024 -0700
description:
Modules: fixed clear() method of a shared dictionary without timeout.
Previously, the code did not unlock the rwlock whe
Hi Sergey,
> While I agree that false positives do not allow to run LeakSanitizer
> in a clean fashion, I don't think it is nginx which should be fixed.
> Rather, sanitizer analysis could be improved instead to prevent FPs.
Patches welcome?
> Meanwhile, leak sanitizer can be used with suppressio
Hi Roman,
> Thanks for the patch, looks valid, except we no longer need to explicitly
> initialize fields to zero.
Right, I was going back-and-forth between which version I should send.
> Also, I think we need more details about the
> uninitialized memory access. See updated patch.
LGTM, thank
Hi Sergey,
> The "shift" remark doesn't describe a problem in details.
It's not a remark, it's the name of the UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer
check that caught the issue [1].
> @@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ ngx_cidr_match(struct sockaddr *sa, ngx_
>
> p = inaddr6->s6_addr;
>
> -inad
