如何追踪“双重释放或腐败”错误

Question 1

当我运行（C ++）程序时，它因该错误而崩溃。

*检测到glibc * ./load：两次释放或损坏（！prev）：0x0000000000c6ed50 ***

如何追踪错误？

我尝试使用print（std::cout）语句，但未成功。可以gdb简化这个过程？

Question 2

如果您使用的是glibc，则可以将MALLOC_CHECK_环境变量设置为2，这将导致glibc使用容错版本的malloc，这将导致您的程序在完成两次释放操作时中止运行。

您可以set environment MALLOC_CHECK_ 2在运行程序之前使用命令从gdb进行设置。程序应该中止，并且free()调用在回溯中可见。

有关更多信息，请参见手册页malloc()

Question 3

至少有两种可能的情况：

您两次删除同一实体
您正在删除未分配的内容

对于第一个，我强烈建议对所有已删除的指针进行NULL处理。

您有三种选择：

重载new并删除并跟踪分配
是的，请使用gdb －然后您将从崩溃中获取回溯信息，这可能会非常有帮助
根据建议-使用Valgrind-进入并不容易，但是它将在未来节省数千倍的时间...

Question 4

您可以使用gdb，但我首先尝试使用Valgrind。请参阅快速入门指南。

简要地说，Valgrind对您的程序进行了检测，以便它可以在使用动态分配的内存时检测几种错误，例如，两次释放并在分配的内存块的末尾进行写操作（这可能会破坏堆）。它可以检测并报告错误， 只要他们出现，从而直接指向你的问题的原因。

Question 5

三个基本规则：

NULL释放后将指针设置为
NULL释放前检查。
首先初始化指向的指针NULL。

这三者的结合效果很好。

Question 6

您可以valgrind用来调试它。

#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>

int main()
{
 char *x = malloc(100);
 free(x);
 free(x);
 return 0;
}

[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$ vim t1.c
[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$ cc -g t1.c -o t1
[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$ ./t1
*** glibc detected *** ./t1: double free or corruption (top): 0x00000000058f7010 ***
======= Backtrace: =========
/lib64/libc.so.6[0x3a3127245f]
/lib64/libc.so.6(cfree+0x4b)[0x3a312728bb]
./t1[0x400500]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf4)[0x3a3121d994]
./t1[0x400429]
======= Memory map: ========
00400000-00401000 r-xp 00000000 68:02 30246184                           /home/sand/testbox/t1
00600000-00601000 rw-p 00000000 68:02 30246184                           /home/sand/testbox/t1
058f7000-05918000 rw-p 058f7000 00:00 0                                  [heap]
3a30e00000-3a30e1c000 r-xp 00000000 68:03 5308733                        /lib64/ld-2.5.so
3a3101b000-3a3101c000 r--p 0001b000 68:03 5308733                        /lib64/ld-2.5.so
3a3101c000-3a3101d000 rw-p 0001c000 68:03 5308733                        /lib64/ld-2.5.so
3a31200000-3a3134e000 r-xp 00000000 68:03 5310248                        /lib64/libc-2.5.so
3a3134e000-3a3154e000 ---p 0014e000 68:03 5310248                        /lib64/libc-2.5.so
3a3154e000-3a31552000 r--p 0014e000 68:03 5310248                        /lib64/libc-2.5.so
3a31552000-3a31553000 rw-p 00152000 68:03 5310248                        /lib64/libc-2.5.so
3a31553000-3a31558000 rw-p 3a31553000 00:00 0
3a41c00000-3a41c0d000 r-xp 00000000 68:03 5310264                        /lib64/libgcc_s-4.1.2-20080825.so.1
3a41c0d000-3a41e0d000 ---p 0000d000 68:03 5310264                        /lib64/libgcc_s-4.1.2-20080825.so.1
3a41e0d000-3a41e0e000 rw-p 0000d000 68:03 5310264                        /lib64/libgcc_s-4.1.2-20080825.so.1
2b1912300000-2b1912302000 rw-p 2b1912300000 00:00 0
2b191231c000-2b191231d000 rw-p 2b191231c000 00:00 0
7ffffe214000-7ffffe229000 rw-p 7ffffffe9000 00:00 0                      [stack]
7ffffe2b0000-7ffffe2b4000 r-xp 7ffffe2b0000 00:00 0                      [vdso]
ffffffffff600000-ffffffffffe00000 ---p 00000000 00:00 0                  [vsyscall]
Aborted
[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$


[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$ vim t1.c
[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$ cc -g t1.c -o t1
[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$ valgrind --tool=memcheck ./t1
==20859== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==20859== Copyright (C) 2002-2009, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==20859== Using Valgrind-3.5.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==20859== Command: ./t1
==20859==
==20859== Invalid free() / delete / delete[]
==20859==    at 0x4A05A31: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:325)
==20859==    by 0x4004FF: main (t1.c:8)
==20859==  Address 0x4c26040 is 0 bytes inside a block of size 100 free'd
==20859==    at 0x4A05A31: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:325)
==20859==    by 0x4004F6: main (t1.c:7)
==20859==
==20859==
==20859== HEAP SUMMARY:
==20859==     in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==20859==   total heap usage: 1 allocs, 2 frees, 100 bytes allocated
==20859==
==20859== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible
==20859==
==20859== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==20859== ERROR SUMMARY: 1 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 4 from 4)
[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$


[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$ valgrind --tool=memcheck --leak-check=full ./t1
==20899== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==20899== Copyright (C) 2002-2009, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==20899== Using Valgrind-3.5.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==20899== Command: ./t1
==20899==
==20899== Invalid free() / delete / delete[]
==20899==    at 0x4A05A31: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:325)
==20899==    by 0x4004FF: main (t1.c:8)
==20899==  Address 0x4c26040 is 0 bytes inside a block of size 100 free'd
==20899==    at 0x4A05A31: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:325)
==20899==    by 0x4004F6: main (t1.c:7)
==20899==
==20899==
==20899== HEAP SUMMARY:
==20899==     in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==20899==   total heap usage: 1 allocs, 2 frees, 100 bytes allocated
==20899==
==20899== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible
==20899==
==20899== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==20899== ERROR SUMMARY: 1 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 4 from 4)
[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$

一种可能的解决方法：

#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>

int main()
{
 char *x = malloc(100);
 free(x);
 x=NULL;
 free(x);
 return 0;
}

[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$ vim t1.c
[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$ cc -g t1.c -o t1
[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$ ./t1
[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$

[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$ valgrind --tool=memcheck --leak-check=full ./t1
==20958== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==20958== Copyright (C) 2002-2009, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==20958== Using Valgrind-3.5.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==20958== Command: ./t1
==20958==
==20958==
==20958== HEAP SUMMARY:
==20958==     in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==20958==   total heap usage: 1 allocs, 1 frees, 100 bytes allocated
==20958==
==20958== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible
==20958==
==20958== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==20958== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 4 from 4)
[sand@PS-CNTOS-64-S11 testbox]$

查看有关使用Valgrind Link的博客

Question 7

使用现代的C ++编译器，您可以使用消毒剂进行跟踪。

示例示例：

我的程序：

$cat d_free.cxx 
#include<iostream>

using namespace std;

int main()

{
   int * i = new int();
   delete i;
   //i = NULL;
   delete i;
}

用地址清理器进行编译：

# g++-7.1 d_free.cxx -Wall -Werror -fsanitize=address -g

执行：

# ./a.out 
=================================================================
==4836==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: attempting double-free on 0x602000000010 in thread T0:
    #0 0x7f35b2d7b3c8 in operator delete(void*, unsigned long) /media/sf_shared/gcc-7.1.0/libsanitizer/asan/asan_new_delete.cc:140
    #1 0x400b2c in main /media/sf_shared/jkr/cpp/d_free/d_free.cxx:11
    #2 0x7f35b2050c04 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x21c04)
    #3 0x400a08  (/media/sf_shared/jkr/cpp/d_free/a.out+0x400a08)

0x602000000010 is located 0 bytes inside of 4-byte region [0x602000000010,0x602000000014)
freed by thread T0 here:
    #0 0x7f35b2d7b3c8 in operator delete(void*, unsigned long) /media/sf_shared/gcc-7.1.0/libsanitizer/asan/asan_new_delete.cc:140
    #1 0x400b1b in main /media/sf_shared/jkr/cpp/d_free/d_free.cxx:9
    #2 0x7f35b2050c04 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x21c04)

previously allocated by thread T0 here:
    #0 0x7f35b2d7a040 in operator new(unsigned long) /media/sf_shared/gcc-7.1.0/libsanitizer/asan/asan_new_delete.cc:80
    #1 0x400ac9 in main /media/sf_shared/jkr/cpp/d_free/d_free.cxx:8
    #2 0x7f35b2050c04 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x21c04)

SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: double-free /media/sf_shared/gcc-7.1.0/libsanitizer/asan/asan_new_delete.cc:140 in operator delete(void*, unsigned long)
==4836==ABORTING

要了解有关消毒剂的更多信息，可以查看此文档或此文档或任何现代c ++编译器（例如gcc，clang等）的文档。

Question 8

您正在使用Boost等智能指针shared_ptr吗？如果是这样，请通过调用来检查是否在任何地方直接使用了原始指针get()。我发现这是一个非常普遍的问题。

例如，假设有一个原始指针传递给您的代码的场景（例如，可能作为回调处理程序）。您可能决定将其分配给智能指针，以应对引用计数等问题。大错误：除非进行深拷贝，否则代码不拥有此指针。当您的代码用智能指针完成后，它将销毁它并尝试销毁它指向的内存，因为它认为没有其他人需要它，但是调用代码随后将尝试删除它，并且您会得到两倍免费的问题。

当然，这可能不是您的问题。最简单的是，下面的示例说明了它如何发生。第一次删除是可以的，但是编译器会感觉到它已经删除了该内存并导致了问题。因此，删除后立即为指针分配0是一个好主意。

int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
    char* ptr = new char[20];

    delete[] ptr;
    ptr = 0;  // Comment me out and watch me crash and burn.
    delete[] ptr;
}

编辑：更改delete为delete[]，因为ptr是char数组。

Question 9

我知道这是一个非常老的线程，但这是Google对该错误的最高搜索，并且没有任何响应提及该错误的常见原因。

这将关闭您已经关闭的文件。

如果您不注意并且有两个不同的函数关闭同一个文件，则第二个将生成此错误。