Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Description of problem:
rpcbind leak memory in init_transport()
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpcbind-0.2.0-11.el6
How reproducible:
100% easily
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Just run rpcbind within valgrind, e.g.
valgrind --log-file=valgrind.out --trace-children=yes --leak-check=full --track-origins=yes -v --show-reachable=yes rpcbind
Actual results:
[root@hp-dl580g7-03 ~]# rpm -q rpcbind
rpcbind-0.2.0-11.el6.x86_64
[root@hp-dl580g7-03 ~]#
[root@hp-dl580g7-03 ~]# service nfs stop
Shutting down NFS daemon: [ OK ]
Shutting down NFS mountd: [ OK ]
Shutting down NFS quotas: s[ OK ]
Shutting down NFS services: [ OK ]
Shutting down RPC idmapd: [ OK ]
[root@hp-dl580g7-03 ~]# service rpcbind stop
Stopping rpcbind: [ OK ]
[root@hp-dl580g7-03 ~]# ps axf | grep [r]pcbind
[root@hp-dl580g7-03 ~]# valgrind --log-file=valgrind.out --trace-children=yes --leak-check=full --track-origins=yes -v --show-reachable=yes rpcbind
[root@hp-dl580g7-03 ~]# ps axf | grep [r]pcbind
72903 ? Ss 0:01 valgrind --log-file=valgrind.out --trace-children=yes --leak-check=full --track-origins=yes -v --show-reachable=yes rpcbind
[root@hp-dl580g7-03 ~]# cat valgrind.out | grep -A25 "LEAK SUMMARY"
==72902== LEAK SUMMARY:
==72902== definitely lost: 527 bytes in 10 blocks
==72902== indirectly lost: 1,000 bytes in 1 blocks
==72902== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==72902== still reachable: 56,801 bytes in 146 blocks
==72902== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==72902==
==72902== ERROR SUMMARY: 10 errors from 9 contexts (suppressed: 6 from 6)
==72902==
==72902== 2 errors in context 1 of 9:
==72902== Invalid read of size 1
==72902== at 0x4A07F48: strnlen (mc_replace_strmem.c:375)
==72902== by 0x58D725D: vfprintf (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==72902== by 0x5993EFB: __vasprintf_chk (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==72902== by 0x5993E22: __asprintf_chk (in /lib64/libc-2.12.so)
==72902== by 0x4E37517: __rpc_taddr2uaddr_af (in /lib64/libtirpc.so.1.0.10)
==72902== by 0x4E37732: taddr2uaddr (in /lib64/libtirpc.so.1.0.10)
==72902== by 0x10B7D4: rbllist_add.clone.0 (rpcbind.c:709)
==72902== by 0x10BF34: init_transport (rpcbind.c:637)
==72902== by 0x10C7D2: main (rpcbind.c:181)
==72902== Address 0x5c28b77 is 0 bytes after a block of size 23 alloc'd
==72902== at 0x4A06A2E: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:270)
==72902== by 0x10BA1B: init_transport (rpcbind.c:519)
==72902== by 0x10C7D2: main (rpcbind.c:181)
==72902==
--72902--
[root@hp-dl580g7-03 ~]#
Expected results:
No leaks
Additional info:
This issue is found when dealing with bug 1186933, please find the related comments:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186933#c5https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186933#c47
Possible upstream commit:
commit 61d4aef25a2bb4a460beb40dbdd30dd3fb883547
Author: Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk>
Date: Tue Dec 16 14:00:12 2014 -0500
tirpc: fix taddr2uaddr for AF_LOCAL
taddr2uaddr would return trailing garbage for AF_LOCAL addresses
taddr2uaddr assumed that the sun_path field of an AF_LOCAL address
was always NULL terminated, but that is not necessarily the case,
especially if the buffer was allocated using the correct SUN_LEN().
Signed-off-by: Olaf Kirch <okir>
Signed-off-by: Steve Dickson <steved>
definitely lost: 527 bytes in 10 blocks
That means it is leaking memory somewhere unless it is a false positive (possible but unlikely). Do a search for "definitely lost" and look at the stacks involved. The memory leaks may be a different bug but likely still a bug. "Definitely lost" is a leak, "invalid read" is invalid memory access... different things but both bugs (unless false positives). Hope this helps.
(In reply to Brad Hubbard from comment #7)
> definitely lost: 527 bytes in 10 blocks
>
> That means it is leaking memory somewhere unless it is a false positive
> (possible but unlikely). Do a search for "definitely lost" and look at the
> stacks involved. The memory leaks may be a different bug but likely still a
> bug. "Definitely lost" is a leak, "invalid read" is invalid memory access...
> different things but both bugs (unless false positives). Hope this helps.
Thanks for the prompt reply, it do help me a lot.
As the "invalid read" issue has been fixed (Comment #5), just move to VERIFIED.
And will file another bug to track the "Definitely lost" issue if necessary.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.
For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.
If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017-0606.html