From: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi |
Subject: | Re: Multiple false-positive warnings from Valgrind |
Date: | 2017-03-31 13:40:07 |
Message-ID: | 20170331134006.GA6150@e733.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Kyotaro,
> > And it seems to me that this is caused by the routines of OpenSSL.
> > When building without --with-openssl, using the fallback
> > implementations of SHA256 and RAND_bytes I see no warnings generated
> > by scram_build_verifier... I think it makes most sense to discard that
> > from the list of open items.
>
> FWIW a document of the function says that,
>
> https://www.openssl.org/docs/man1.0.1/crypto/RAND_bytes.html
>
> > The contents of buf is mixed into the entropy pool before
> > retrieving the new pseudo-random bytes unless disabled at compile
> > time (see FAQ).
>
> This isn't saying that RAND_bytes does the same thing but
> something similar can be happening there.
OK, turned out that warnings regarding uninitialized values disappear
after removing --with-openssl. That's a good thing.
What about all these memory leak reports [1]? If I see them should I just
ignore them or, if reports look false positive, suggest a patch that
modifies a Valgrind suppression file? In other words what is current
consensus in community regarding Valgrind and it's reports?
[1] http://afiskon.ru/s/47/871f1e21ef_valgrind.txt.gz
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-31 13:42:31 | Re: logical replication launcher crash on buildfarm |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-31 13:22:01 | Re: REFERENCES privilege should not be symmetric (was Re: [GENERAL] Postgres Permissions Article) |