[issue44363] Likely false positive for address sanitizer after fork

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: As I mentioned in https://bugs.python.org/issue43693, the way to run it is the following: $ export ASAN_OPTIONS=detect_leaks=0:allocator_may_return_null=1:handle_segv=0 $ ./configure --with-address-sanitizer --without-pymalloc $ make -j -s $ ./python

[issue44363] Likely false positive for address sanitizer after fork

Mark Shannon added the comment: If I run the following on main ./configure --with-address-sanitizer make clean make -j12 test I get 22 failures. So something is broken. test_lib2to3 does fork; at least it does when I run it under gdb. -- ___

[issue44363] Likely false positive for address sanitizer after fork

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: I'm closing this as 3 different tools complain about the same thing, with a very simple reproducer. -- resolution: -> not a bug stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker

[issue44363] Likely false positive for address sanitizer after fork

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: Even valgrind sees the problem: ❯ valgrind ./python -m test test_lib2to3 ==27010== Memcheck, a memory error detector ==27010== Copyright (C) 2002-2017, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al. ==27010== Using Valgrind-3.17.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for

[issue44363] Likely false positive for address sanitizer after fork

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: Also, I can reproduce locally without any fork whatsoever: ./python -m test test_lib2to3 SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: heap-buffer-overflow Python/ceval.c:3549 in _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault Shadow bytes around the buggy address: 0x0c1c8003ec40: fa fa fa

[issue44363] Likely false positive for address sanitizer after fork

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: I can reproduce that failure of address sanitizer with GCC and clang separately, so it doesn't seem like a false positive. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue44363] Likely false positive for address sanitizer after fork

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: Buildbots have the priority, please don't merge anything that breaks the buildbots. We should figure out how to silence the false positive if indeed is one, but I don't think it is. The address sanitizer is not speculative, it literally checks if

[issue44363] Likely false positive for address sanitizer after fork

New submission from Mark Shannon : Running the buildbot for https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/26595 results in failures: https://buildbot.python.org/all/#/builders/581/builds/63 Which claim that the address calculation in `LOAD_ATTR_MODULE` is out of bounds. The tests pass with an added