On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 11:54:33PM +0000, builder--- via Elfutils-devel wrote: > A new failure has been detected on builder elfutils-fedora-s390x while > building elfutils. > > Full details are available at: > https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/43/builds/47 > > Build state: failed test (failure) > Revision: 369c021c6eedae3665c1dbbaa4fc43afbbb698f4 > Worker: fedora-s390x > Build Reason: (unknown) > Blamelist: Di Chen <dic...@redhat.com> > [...] > - 7: make check ( failure ) > Logs: > - stdio: > https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/43/builds/47/steps/7/logs/stdio > - test-suite.log: > https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#builders/43/builds/47/steps/7/logs/test-suite_log
So that is in the one little addition I made: -==3856043== Invalid read of size 1 -==3856043== at 0x484EBE8: memrchr (vg_replace_strmem.c:1012) -==3856043== by 0x100FEDF: handle_dynamic (readelf.c:1909) -==3856043== by 0x102061D: print_dynamic (readelf.c:2013) -==3856043== by 0x102061D: process_elf_file (readelf.c:1034) -==3856043== by 0x1021FDB: process_dwflmod (readelf.c:818) -==3856043== by 0x4962BCF: dwfl_getmodules (dwfl_getmodules.c:86) -==3856043== by 0x100E175: process_file (readelf.c:926) -==3856043== by 0x1006A75: main (readelf.c:395) -==3856043== Address 0x56df358 is 24 bytes before a block of size 264 alloc'd -==3856043== at 0x484C002: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:1328) -==3856043== by 0x4A4EED9: elf_getdata_rawchunk (elf_getdata_rawchunk.c:173) -==3856043== by 0x1010621: get_dynscn_strtab (readelf.c:4958) -==3856043== by 0x1010621: handle_dynamic (readelf.c:1884) -==3856043== by 0x102061D: print_dynamic (readelf.c:2013) -==3856043== by 0x102061D: process_elf_file (readelf.c:1034) -==3856043== by 0x1021FDB: process_dwflmod (readelf.c:818) -==3856043== by 0x4962BCF: dwfl_getmodules (dwfl_getmodules.c:86) -==3856043== by 0x100E175: process_file (readelf.c:926) -==3856043== by 0x1006A75: main (readelf.c:395) I am staring at the code, but don't immediately see which mistake I made. Maybe I should use d_val instead of d_ptr (but those are both uint64_t so that shouldn't really matter). Cheers, Mark
