https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #123 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501437
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes ---
There is no fix (yet) as that is still an open bug? I mean there are patches on
it but they aren't committed anywhere.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||heide...@hotmail.com
--- Comment #119 from Tom
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=501437
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105226
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
Resolution|WAITINGFORINFO
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69531
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WAITINGFORINFO |---
CC
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114250
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WAITINGFORINFO |---
Status|NEEDSINFO
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98290
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WAITINGFORINFO |---
Status|NEEDSINFO
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98290
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106877
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #9 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||satishs.kam...@gmail.com
--- Comment #118 from
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497078
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=495761
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=495112
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steve+...@hill-mail.co.uk
--- Comment #97 from
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489221
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487410
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Valgrind is reporting |disInstr(arm64): unhandled
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194144
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=483372
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162229
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=480680
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes ---
I know it's not exactly the same instruction but
d35005cef8ad8207542738812705ceabf137d7e0 that fixed that other bug should cover
this case as well.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching al
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478624
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org
--- Comment #4 from Tom
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=480680
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||k...@chrisada.co.uk
--- Comment #93 from Tom
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=480545
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=480042
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476662
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
Summary|Popfw causes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470978
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||toitran4...@gmail.com
--- Comment #92 from Tom
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470489
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
CC
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470244
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|RESOLVED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470244
--- Comment #9 from Tom Hughes ---
Actually I can see the problem there - the following segment is an SkResvn not
SkFree.
Now VG_(am_get_advisory_client_simple) will allow a reservation to be used so
will accept the request, but VG_
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470244
--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes ---
This is the call:
SYSCALL[157805,1](25) sys_mremap ( 0xac, 8192, 16384, 0x0 ) -->
[pre-fail] Failure(0xc)
so it's being rejected by valgrind with ENOMEM without being passed to the
kernel.
Given t
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470244
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=469878
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tus...@kazv.moe
--- Comment #91 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=469565
--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes ---
It shouldn't be possible to strip libc.so in a way that removes a public symbol
like malloc - it must at least be in the dynamic symbol table or the dynamic
linker couldn't work.
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=469565
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes ---
Are using a statically linked C library?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=469565
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417572
--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes ---
I believe the instruction is:
VEX.128.66.0F.WIG D6 /r
VMOVQ xmm1/m64, xmm2
Move quadword from xmm2 register to xmm1/m64.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417572
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=339416
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
--- Comment #90 from Tom Hughes ---
*** Bug 339416 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=339416
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arnaud.desit...@gmail.com
--- Comment #89 from
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417572
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425445
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=410102
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |---
CC
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133766
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Ever confirmed|0
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463082
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kobalicek.p...@gmail.com
--- Comment #83 from Tom
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462135
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes ---
Sure, but something has chosen to output the instruction with an EVEX prefix,
which was added as part of AVX512 so you'll need the AVX512 support to have any
chance of decoding it.
It may well be possible to e
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462135
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||smuel...@chronox.de
--- Comment #82 from Tom
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462135
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|unhandled instruction |vex amd64->IR: unhandled
|by
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=461922
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
CC
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459047
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459047
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |NOT A BUG
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459047
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Memory leak in valgrind |Incorrect memory leak
|memcheck
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=457860
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=456948
--- Comment #11 from Tom Hughes ---
That is exactly what we do and why Mark said your program should be checking
the CPU capabilities.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=456948
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #7 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455740
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes ---
I hadn't initially understood that you were suggesting an addition to an
existing message because the way the initial parts of the report made it
written made it sound like this was a new idea to document hint
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455740
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Include hints for Arch |Include hints for Arch
|linux
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455740
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Tip to improve "a function |Include hints for
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455740
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes ---
Also I don't see why installing debuginfod would help - installing the client
tools might help but there's no reason you should need the daemon.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watchi
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455740
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ytr...@sdf-eu.org
--- Comment #78 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=451837
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchen0...@gmail.com
--- Comment #77 from Tom
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455279
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arkang...@gmail.com
--- Comment #76 from Tom
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408140
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455279
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes ---
Ah it's an EVEX prefix now but the opcode map in the Intel manual helpfully
doesn't mention that...
There is no AVX512 support in valgrind currently so you can't run code that is
compiled to use AVX5
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455279
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342988
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alfred.pola...@broadcom.com
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454482
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454482
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes ---
The point really is that I don't think we've ever bothered to implement in 0x80
on x86_64 because nothing uses it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454482
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes ---
Why are you using int 0x80 to make a system call on x86_64 though?
Even newer x86_32 systems have better ways to make system calls and x86_64 has
never really used that for them other that in artificial hand rolled
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454482
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
Summary|valgrind
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453084
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453084
--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes ---
Sorry I meant I reproduced in Fedora 35 and without having to figure out docker
which is a totally unnecessary distraction.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453084
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes ---
I've managed to reproduce it on Fedora 34 and it does seem to be linked to use
__memmove_chk and __memmove_chk and __memcpy_chkdo seem to be different symbols
in glibc (sometimes the two are the same if memc
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453084
--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes ---
I think this (from --trace-redir=yes) explains is:
--3163534-- REDIR: 0x4a5f6c0 (libc.so.6:__memmove_chk) redirected to 0x48391ea
(_vgnU_ifunc_wrapper)
--3163534-- Adding redirect for indirect function 0x4a5f6c0 from
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453065
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
CC
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=451837
--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes ---
That looks the same to me if you ignore the extra bytes. The valgrind decoder
doesn't know how long the instruction is (because it doesn't understand it) so
it just dumps enough bytes to guarantee getting
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=451837
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes ---
I meant "without valgrind" there of course...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=451837
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164298
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INTENTIONAL
CC
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=450458
--- Comment #8 from Tom Hughes ---
Well in principle we should probably treat them as non-file backed but it's
going to be tricky to identify them. This is what a mapping from such a file
looks like in valgrind's address map:
--3993090:1: a
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=450458
--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes ---
Specifically
https://github.com/zherczeg/sljit/blob/8d0f668fad91ca1d6c8afb3b72b34db41bee/sljit_src/sljitProtExecAllocator.c#L116
in sljit.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=450458
--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes ---
Ah the /memfd:sljit path is probably a big clue - it's using an anonymous file
created with memfd_create so it is file backed but not with a real file.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watchin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=450458
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes ---
Well that's quite interesting - the default is --smc-check=all-non-file which
means we check for self modifying code on heap, stack and in anonymous mappings
but not in file backed mappings.
So it sounds like
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=450458
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes ---
Checked the December 2021 edition of the manual now and nothing seems to have
changed so that is not a valid instruction.
Either this is self modifying code that hasn't been detected (does
--smc-check=all help
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=450458
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405377
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@linux.ibm.com
--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=449199
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=448991
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446754
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@compton.nu
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=339596
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||k...@tastytea.de
--- Comment #27 from Tom Hughes
1 - 100 of 502 matches
Mail list logo
