Re: Strategies for tracking array memory violations in FFI code?
- From: Mike Pall <mike-1206@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:41:26 +0200
demetri wrote:
> I have a problem with some FFI code that's almost certainly violating array
> bounds somewhere. In plain C code I'd solve it with valgrind. If I
> valgrind, say, a C main() with an embedded luajit I can't track the errors
> to the call-site because the violated objects are created with ffi.new.
If the code in question is compiled, you can use -jdump to write
the generated traces to a file. Then search for the address that
Valgrind complains about. The starting Lua location of that trace
should be near the culprit.
> I can presumably manually track the addresses of these objects, but I was
> hoping people had a more sophisticated solution. The best I can do right
> now is using a safe_new() which adds a metamethod that tracks accesses and
> asserts that they're within some bounds. Is this the best practical
> solution?
Yes, extra bounds checking would another option. Might be easier
if you have a good idea which kind of object causes the problem.
--Mike
Other related posts:
