search for: interceptors

...ly false positive reports, because the inner __call_once function is located in the (non-instrumented) libcxx library, and on macOS we can't expect the users to build their own instrumented libcxx. >>>> >>>> TSan already supports pthread_once and dispatch_once by having interceptors that re-implement the logic. However, doing the same for call_once/__call_once doesn't work, because call_once is explicitly supposed to be exception-safe, but the sanitizer runtime libraries disallow exception handling. >>>> >>>> Any ideas how to handle call_once in T...

...here are currently false positive reports, because the inner __call_once function is located in the (non-instrumented) libcxx library, and on macOS we can't expect the users to build their own instrumented libcxx. >> >> TSan already supports pthread_once and dispatch_once by having interceptors that re-implement the logic. However, doing the same for call_once/__call_once doesn't work, because call_once is explicitly supposed to be exception-safe, but the sanitizer runtime libraries disallow exception handling. >> >> Any ideas how to handle call_once in TSan? > >...

..._once function. There are currently false positive reports, because the inner __call_once function is located in the (non-instrumented) libcxx library, and on macOS we can't expect the users to build their own instrumented libcxx. TSan already supports pthread_once and dispatch_once by having interceptors that re-implement the logic. However, doing the same for call_once/__call_once doesn't work, because call_once is explicitly supposed to be exception-safe, but the sanitizer runtime libraries disallow exception handling. Any ideas how to handle call_once in TSan? Thanks! Kuba

Consider this dialplan fragment, where the call is being dialed into [macro-process-routing] over an iax2 channel from another (same build) Asterisk server: [macro-process-routing] ; This is the entrypoint of the debug call but is also refered to by Macro(process-routing) elsewhere in the dialplan ; XXX-NNN-6800 exten => _6800,1,Macro(6800-interceptor) ; This is matched when 8 is

Hi, I am developing a rails 3 application. I want to use a interceptor before delivering emails. If a conditions meets, I want to stop the email. How do I do that? Thanks. Sam -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to

Hi, I triggered a build failure on a Windows-sanitizer by making the sanity checking in `ASAN_INTERCEPT_FUNC` a bit stricter. My best guess is that the type of the defined interceptor is not compatible (in C++ typing terms) with the “real” function. This seems to be the case for the following 2 functions: CreateThread “no conversion”: From: 'DWORD (__cdecl *)(void * ,

I am guessing that sanitizers are not supported with static linking. The AddressSanitizer document says so explicitly but the others do not. Yet the interceptors use dlsym to set up certain system calls, so by definition they can't support static linking. Given that sanitizers won't work with static linking, why are static libraries created for them? Should there be an error check in the interceptor code for dlsym returning nullptr? I just spent...

...e reports, because the inner __call_once function is located in the (non-instrumented) libcxx library, and on macOS we can't expect the users to build their own instrumented libcxx. >>>>>> >>>>>> TSan already supports pthread_once and dispatch_once by having interceptors that re-implement the logic. However, doing the same for call_once/__call_once doesn't work, because call_once is explicitly supposed to be exception-safe, but the sanitizer runtime libraries disallow exception handling. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any ideas how to handl...

Hi everyone, I ran into a false positive with memory sanitizer due to it not intercepting dlinfo. I tried to get started on writing such an interceptor, but dlinfo seems like an extraordinarily difficult function to intercept. The three considerations that I would like somebody to look at are: 1) How do we get the enum values to decide what kind of pointer dlinfo is getting. Ideally we'd

...using a debug version > of system library): > I think I actually encountered all these cases. > > That said, the benefit of checking the sorting routines is clear: I'm not > surprised you were able to catch numerous bugs with your tool. > > UBSan currently doesn't have interceptors, and all of its checks [1] are > designed to work without runtime library support, so that it can be used as > a mitigation > tool (with -fsanitize-trap=undefined). It's challenging to add UBSan > interceptors at this point: this would limit the tool portability (at least > porta...

Posting to the list first, rather than filing a bug because I'm not sure this is still an intended configuration: With LLVM configured as: CXX=clang++ CC=clang cmake ../llvm/ \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=~/install/llvm-master/ \ -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=host \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=true \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXX=yes \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXXABI=yes The check-all target

Has anyone successfully gotten the scoped_access[1] plugin to work in Rails 1.1? Some of the methods it was relying on are now no longer accessible. It seems the only way to add scope is to use the ''with_scope'' method that takes a block, but since Rails doesn''t have real around filters[2] I cannot see a way of adding a scope using a filter. Anyone using with_scope

...>>> I think I actually encountered all these cases. >>> >>> That said, the benefit of checking the sorting routines is clear: I'm not >>> surprised you were able to catch numerous bugs with your tool. >>> >>> UBSan currently doesn't have interceptors, and all of its checks [1] are >>> designed to work without runtime library support, so that it can be used as >>> a mitigation >>> tool (with -fsanitize-trap=undefined). It's challenging to add UBSan >>> interceptors at this point: this would limit the tool...

Thanks! I'll try that. In order to avoid starting a new thread, let me ask you the next question. One of the shared libraries I load calls strtol and msan fails to intercept it. Why would this be? The library seems to be otherwise implemented. One of the potential culprits I saw is that strtol is marked as strong in libc. Is there any workaround? Keno On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Evgeniy

...>>>>> >>>>> That said, the benefit of checking the sorting routines is clear: I'm >>>>> not >>>>> surprised you were able to catch numerous bugs with your tool. >>>>> >>>>> UBSan currently doesn't have interceptors, and all of its checks [1] are >>>>> designed to work without runtime library support, so that it can be >>>>> used as >>>>> a mitigation >>>>> tool (with -fsanitize-trap=undefined). It's challenging to add UBSan >>>>> i...

...w around hwasan in the kernel? 2) I believe compiling while ignoring the "short-granule" feature would not add any incompatibilities with other code. Is this correct? 3) Am I right in thinking that longjmp and setjmp are only handled in the platform ABI? (I couldn't see any interceptors for them). Thanks, Matthew

On 11/15/20 1:29 PM, John Fawcett wrote: >> atm, listening on localhost, with Dovecot -> Tika direct, no proxy. >> >> similarly fragile under load. throwing ~10 messages with .5-5MB attachments at it at once causes all sorts of complaints. frequently, like this Nov 15 15:59:40 test.loc tika[35696]: INFO tika/ (message/rfc822) Nov 15 15:59:41 test.loc tika[35696]: WARN

...specifier to lots of libc functions as an optimization. It only does this if the compiler is modern and GCC-like, and we are compiling in C++ mode. This, however, causes GCC to complain about signature mismatches between the glibc functions declared in malloc.h and those defined as an alias in the interceptors library: ..../asan_malloc_linux.cc:57:1: error: declaration of 'void free(void*)' has a different exception specifier /usr/include/malloc.h:66:13: error: from previous declaration 'void free(void*) throw ()' I've attached a complete hack of a patch to address this... but sure...

Hi, I would like to use dtrace to observe some behaviour in my J2EE app running in JBoss. I start JBoss normally in a 1.6 VM. When I try to enable set the ExtendedDTraceProbes flag using jinfo, I get a thread dump in the JBoss console and the message: "Unable to open door: target process not responding or HotSpot VM not loaded" in the jinfo console. I have tried this with both

I have a dataset called "results" that looks like this: arrive depart intercept 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 where arrive is the period of arrival, depart is the period of departure, and intercept