[debbugs-tracker] bug#20079: closed (Fwd: Memory leak from seek/ftell with files larger than 2GB)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:01:57 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#20079: Fwd: Memory leak from seek/ftell with files 
larger than 2GB
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #20079,
regarding Fwd: Memory leak from seek/ftell with files larger than 2GB
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
20079: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20079
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: Fwd: Memory leak from seek/ftell with files larger than 2GB Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:08:18 +0530

Hi,

I had sent the following to the user forum and did not receive any comments.  I am reposting it in the bug forum with the hope that one of the experts may be able to comment...

Thanks,

Anand

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anand Mohanadoss <address@hidden>
Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:35 PM
Subject: Memory leak from seek/ftell with files larger than 2GB
To: address@hidden

Hi,

We are seeing an issue with seek and ftell leaking memory with files larger than 2GB.

We are using 2.0.11 guile built as a 32-bit application with large file support enabled (guile was built using gcc 4.4.0 for Linux with flags _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, _LARGEFILE_SOURCE and _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE).  The issue also appears to happen with guile 2.2.

The memory leaks start only after the offset exceeds maximum positive value for a 32-bit signed integer. ftell and seek do work as expected (given how lseek should work with large file support).

Appended is a program that illustrates the problem.  The first seek simply skips the part of the file where you won't see a memory leak. If you comment out ftell and the second seek lines and un-comment the lines that follow them, there is no memory leak. 

Is this a bug in guile or should we be doing things differently?  If this is a known issue, is there a recommended work around?

Thanks,

Anand

 
(define MAX_SIGNED_INT 2147483647)
(define BYTES_TO_READ 10)

(define file "/tmp/test.pcap")  ;sample file greater than 2.5GB

(define (traverse file)
 (let* ((port (open-input-file file #:binary #t))
        (file-sz (stat:size (stat port)))
        (ua (make-bytevector BYTES_TO_READ 0))
        (cur-offset 0))
   (seek port (- MAX_UNSIGNED_INT 1000) SEEK_CUR)
   (while (< (ftell port) (- file-sz BYTES_TO_READ))
   ;(while (< cur-offset (- file-sz BYTES_TO_READ))
       (seek  port BYTES_TO_READ SEEK_CUR)
       ;(get-bytevector-n! port ua 0 BYTES_TO_READ)
       (set! cur-offset (+ BYTES_TO_READ cur-offset)))
   (close-port port)))

(traverse file)

--- End Message ---

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#20079: Fwd: Memory leak from seek/ftell with files larger than 2GB
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:01:57 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you very much for this one!  Turns out we had an incredibly
> embarrassing bug in which we forgot to attach finalizers for bignums
> created by scm_from_{uint64,int64} on 32-bit platforms.  Fixed in master
> and stable-2.0.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
> On Wed 11 Mar 2015 13:38, Anand Mohanadoss <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I had sent the following to the user forum and did not receive any
> > comments. I am reposting it in the bug forum with the hope that one of
> > the experts may be able to comment...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anand
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Anand Mohanadoss <address@hidden>
> > Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:35 PM
> > Subject: Memory leak from seek/ftell with files larger than 2GB
> > To: address@hidden
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are seeing an issue with seek and ftell leaking memory with files
> > larger than 2GB.
> >
> > We are using 2.0.11 guile built as a 32-bit application with large
> > file support enabled (guile was built using gcc 4.4.0 for Linux with
> > flags _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, _LARGEFILE_SOURCE and _
> > LARGEFILE64_SOURCE). The issue also appears to happen with guile 2.2.
> >
> > The memory leaks start only after the offset exceeds maximum positive
> > value for a 32-bit signed integer. ftell and seek do work as expected
> > (given how lseek should work with large file support).
> >
> > Appended is a program that illustrates the problem. The first seek
> > simply skips the part of the file where you won't see a memory leak.
> > If you comment out ftell and the second seek lines and un-comment the
> > lines that follow them, there is no memory leak. 
> >
> > Is this a bug in guile or should we be doing things differently? If
> > this is a known issue, is there a recommended work around?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anand
> >
> > (define MAX_SIGNED_INT 2147483647)
> > (define BYTES_TO_READ 10)
> >
> > (define file "/tmp/test.pcap") ;sample file greater than 2.5GB
> >
> > (define (traverse file)
> > (let* ((port (open-input-file file #:binary #t))
> > (file-sz (stat:size (stat port)))
> > (ua (make-bytevector BYTES_TO_READ 0))
> > (cur-offset 0))
> > (seek port (- MAX_UNSIGNED_INT 1000) SEEK_CUR)
> > (while (< (ftell port) (- file-sz BYTES_TO_READ))
> > ;(while (< cur-offset (- file-sz BYTES_TO_READ))
> > (seek port BYTES_TO_READ SEEK_CUR)
> > ;(get-bytevector-n! port ua 0 BYTES_TO_READ)
> > (set! cur-offset (+ BYTES_TO_READ cur-offset)))
> > (close-port port))) 
> >
> > (traverse file)
>
>
> --- End Message ---