DEBUG神器valgrind之memcheck报告分析

最新推荐文章于 2024-07-17 21:15:07 发布

攻城诗赋

最新推荐文章于 2024-07-17 21:15:07 发布

阅读量1.4w

点赞数 8

分类专栏： c++ 坑 think 文章标签： memcheck valgrind 内存泄露崩溃堆栈

本文链接：https://blog.csdn.net/jinzeyu_cn/article/details/45969877

版权

c++ 同时被 3 个专栏收录

16 篇文章 0 订阅

订阅专栏

坑

5 篇文章 0 订阅

订阅专栏

think

2 篇文章 0 订阅

订阅专栏

memcheck怎么运行

valgrind --log-file=valgrind.log --tool=memcheck --leak-check=full --show-reachable=no --workaround-gcc296-bugs=yes ./mcsample arg1 arg2

–log-file 表示输出报告文件，可以是相对路径或完全路径
–tool=memcheck 做内存检测就是memcheck，要知道valgrind是一个工具集
–leak-check=full 完整检测
–show-reachable=no 是否显示reachable详见内存泄露部分，通常是no，也可以改成yes
–workaround-gcc296-bugs=yes 如果你的gcc存在对应的bug，则要设为yes，否则有误报
最后是被检测程序及其参数。

memcheck报告怎么看

先来一段意外的写错

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    char* bigBuff = (char*)malloc[1024];
    free(bigBuff);
}

==3498== Invalid free() / delete / delete[] / realloc()
==3498==    at 0x402B06C: free (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
==3498==    by 0x8048444: main (main.cpp:19)
==3498==  Address 0x40c0500 is in the Text segment of /lib/i386-linux-gnu/libc-2.15.so

代码错误的将malloc()写成了malloc[]，相当于取得了malloc函数指针后面的地址，输出报告告诉我们这个地址位于.text段。

可以看出报告的基本格式是：

{问题描述}   
at {地址、函数名、模块或代码行} 
by {地址、函数名、代码行}
by ...{逐层依次显示调用堆栈}
Address 0x???????? {描述地址的相对关系}

而报告的输出文档整体格式则可以总结为：

1. copyright 版权声明
2. 异常读写报告
2.1 主线程异常读写
2.2 线程A异常读写报告
2.3 线程B异常读写报告
2... 其他线程
3. 堆内存泄露报告
3.1 堆内存使用情况概述(HEAP SUMMARY)
3.2 确信的内存泄露报告(definitely lost)
3.3 可疑内存操作报告 (show-reachable=no关闭)
3.4 泄露情况概述(LEAK SUMMARY)

都有哪些常见异常报告

内存泄漏

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    char* bigBuff = (char*)malloc(1024);
}

1,024 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 1
 at 0x402BE68: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
 by 0x8048414: main (main.cpp:17)

definitely lost：内存没有被释放，且没有任何指针指向这里。肯定泄漏了。报告给出的堆栈是内存被分配时的调用堆栈，它可以基本明确内存是由什么业务逻辑创建的。
still reachable：是说内存没有被释放，尽管如此仍有指针指向，内存仍在使用中，这可以不算泄露。(程序退出时仍在工作的异步系统调用?)
possibly lost：是说可能有泄漏，一般是有二级指针（指针的指针）等复杂情况不易于追踪时出现。
suppressed：统计了使用valgrind的某些参数取消了特定库的某些错误，会被归结到这里

异常释放

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    char* bigBuff = (char*)malloc(1024);
    char* offsetBuff = bigBuff + 888;
    free(offsetBuff);
}

 Invalid free() / delete / delete[] / realloc()
  at 0x402B06C: free (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
  by 0x8048461: main (main.cpp:24)
 Address 0x41f23a0 is 888 bytes inside a block of size 1,024 alloc'd
  at 0x402BE68: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
  by 0x8048444: main (main.cpp:17)

free() / delete / delete[] / realloc() 四种中的任一种，这里是free的非法释放。在描述地址的相对关系时，使用了一个句子，句子的格式是：Address 0x???????? is {x} bytes {inside/before/after} a block of size {y} {alloc’d/free’d}

它表示了释放的地址与一个y长度块的相对位置关系。如果地址位于块前，则用before，位于块内则用inside，块后则是after。而最后的alloc’d代表这个y长度的块处于有效状态，其分配时的栈如下；而free’d代表y长度块已删除，其删除时的栈如下。

所以上面的报告可以解释为：地址0x41f23a0位于一个长度1024的有效块内+888处，其分配时的调用堆栈如下。

非法读写

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    char* bigBuff = (char*)malloc(1024);
    uint64_t* bigNum = (uint64_t*)(bigBuff+1020);
    *bigNum = 0x12345678AABBCCDD;
    printf("bigNum is %llu\n",*bigNum);
    free(bigBuff);
}

Invalid write of size 4
 at 0x8048490: main (main.cpp:19)
Address 0x41f2428 is 0 bytes after a block of size 1,024 alloc'd
 at 0x402BE68: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
 by 0x8048474: main (main.cpp:17)

Invalid read of size 4
 at 0x804849B: main (main.cpp:20)
Address 0x41f2428 is 0 bytes after a block of size 1,024 alloc'd
 at 0x402BE68: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
 by 0x8048474: main (main.cpp:17)

对一个内存区的使用超过了分配的大小时，可以触发Invalid write/read，同时被告知长度。本例中uint64_t有8字节长，访问超出了4字节。如果将bigBuff+1020改成bigBuff-20，那么报告中会准确的告诉你Address xxx is 20 bytes before a block of …

另外一个有趣的现象是，我发现对uint64_t的非法访问会产生2次4字节长度非法访问的报告，这说明了什么？

不匹配的释放

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    int unused;
    char* bigBuff = (char*)malloc(1024);
    delete[] bigBuff;
    printf("unused=%d",unused);
}

Mismatched free() / delete / delete []
 at 0x402A8DC: operator delete[](void*) (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
 by 0x80484FB: main (main.cpp:19)
Address 0x4323028 is 0 bytes inside a block of size 1,024 alloc'd
 at 0x402BE68: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
 by 0x80484E4: main (main.cpp:18)

Use of uninitialised value of size 4
 at 0x416E0DB: _itoa_word (_itoa.c:195)
 by 0x417221A: vfprintf (vfprintf.c:1629)
 by 0x4178B2E: printf (printf.c:35)
 by 0x41454D2: (below main) (libc-start.c:226)

不管malloc分配后用delete还是delete[]，又或者是new[]之后粗心用delete释放，都会得到Mismatched free() / delete / delete []报告，且报告主体内容基本一致。

使用未初始的值

上例中int unused并未赋值即被使用，得到了Use of uninitialised value of size 4的报告，这样的问题通常不致命，但是也需要排除。

可以观察到一个有趣情况，堆栈最后一层首次出现了 (below main)，它表示代码位于main函数以外被执行，也并非来自于线程，我还不能明确解释这种现象，但是我做了下面这个测试：…

静态构造和释放

class GlobalClass
{
public:
    GlobalClass()
    {
        char* buf = (char*)malloc(10);
        *(int*)(buf+8) = 100;
        free(buf);
    }
    ~GlobalClass()
    {
        char* buf = (char*)malloc(10);
        *(int*)(buf+8) = 100;
        free(buf);
    }
    void fake(){}
} g_globalClass;

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    g_globalClass.fake();
}

Invalid write of size 4
 at 0x804857B: GlobalClass::GlobalClass() (main.cpp:21)
 by 0x804850F: __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int) (main.cpp:31)
 by 0x8048551: _GLOBAL__sub_I_g_globalClass (main.cpp:55)
 by 0x8048631: __libc_csu_init (in /home/jinzeyu/codelocal/build-mcsample-Desktop_Qt_5_3_GCC_32bit-Debug/mcsample)
 by 0x4060469: (below main) (libc-start.c:185)
Address 0x41f2030 is 8 bytes inside a block of size 10 alloc'd
 at 0x402BE68: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
 by 0x8048571: GlobalClass::GlobalClass() (main.cpp:20)
 by 0x804850F: __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int) (main.cpp:31)
 by 0x8048551: _GLOBAL__sub_I_g_globalClass (main.cpp:55)
 by 0x8048631: __libc_csu_init (in /home/jinzeyu/codelocal/build-mcsample-Desktop_Qt_5_3_GCC_32bit-Debug/mcsample)
 by 0x4060469: (below main) (libc-start.c:185)

Invalid write of size 4
 at 0x80485B9: GlobalClass::~GlobalClass() (main.cpp:27)
 by 0x4079B80: __run_exit_handlers (exit.c:78)
 by 0x4079C0C: exit (exit.c:100)
 by 0x40604DA: (below main) (libc-start.c:258)
Address 0x41f2070 is 8 bytes inside a block of size 10 alloc'd
 at 0x402BE68: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
 by 0x80485AF: GlobalClass::~GlobalClass() (main.cpp:26)
 by 0x4079B80: __run_exit_handlers (exit.c:78)
 by 0x4079C0C: exit (exit.c:100)
 by 0x40604DA: (below main) (libc-start.c:258)

静态类的构造和释放都在main之外，所以都出现了(below main)的字样，堆栈的函数名也很好的证实了这两个过程。这里我联想到了另一个问题，就是静态构造的顺序不一定按预期，强烈建议静态对象之间不要有依赖关系。

崩溃

如果在memcheck运行你的程序过程中遇到崩溃，它依然能够提供一些有用的信息

--16198-- VALGRIND INTERNAL ERROR: Valgrind received a signal 11 (SIGSEGV) - exiting
--16198-- si_code=1;  Faulting address: 0x74207972;  sp: 0x6564ca5c
valgrind: the 'impossible' happened:
   Killed by fatal signal
==16198==    at 0x380C0AD4: ??? (in /usr/lib/valgrind/memcheck-x86-linux)
==16198==    by 0x380C12C5: ??? (in /usr/lib/valgrind/memcheck-x86-linux)
==16198==    by 0x38040A63: ??? (in /usr/lib/valgrind/memcheck-x86-linux)
==16198==    by 0x38040B36: ??? (in /usr/lib/valgrind/memcheck-x86-linux)
==16198==    by 0x3803EA4B: ??? (in /usr/lib/valgrind/memcheck-x86-linux)
==16198==    by 0x20202E78: ???

sched status:
  running_tid=3

然后报告中依次罗列崩溃时各线程所处的堆栈和线程的运行状态

Thread 1: status = VgTs_WaitSys
...

Thread 2: status = VgTs_WaitSys
...

Thread 3: status = VgTs_Runnable
==16198==    at 0x402C9B4: operator new(unsigned int) (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-x86-linux.so)
==16198==    by 0x437D7D3: std::string::_Rep::_S_create(unsigned int, unsigned int, std::allocator<char> const&) (in /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6.0.16)
==16198==    by 0x437FBB5: std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >::basic_string(char const*, std::allocator<char> const&) (in /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6.0.16)
==16198==    by 0x82A76A3: DataChecker::handle_data_check_resp_msg(void*) (data_checker.c:55)
==16198==    by 0x8144411: main_thread(void*) (main_thread.c:198)
==16198==    by 0x82839CF: thread_manager_start_routine(void*) (thread_manager.c:72)
==16198==    by 0x42D3D4B: start_thread (pthread_create.c:308)
==16198==    by 0x450BFDD: clone (clone.S:130)

Thread 4: status = VgTs_WaitSys
...

那么，运行中的线程自然是嫌疑最大的，我们可以提取它的堆栈信息做进一步分析。