Related
We have a big multi-threaded C++ application running on Linux. We see that occupied by the application memory grows fast and believe there are some leaks. We have tried every tool we have (valgrind, DynLeak, Purify) but did not find anything. Since this application can run on Windows, we have also tried Bounds Checker. Did not help, too.
We need a new tool that can help. I've looked at Google Perfomrance Tools, MMGR by Paul Nettle, MemCheck Deluxe. None of them impressed me.
Is there anywhere a good tool for this task?
The definition of a memory leak in C/C++ is very specific: it is memory that has been allocated and then the pointer was overwritten or otherwise lost. Valgrind generally detects such cases out of the box, but things are not always that simple.
Your application could very well be still using that memory. In that case you might have what a Java programmer would consider a leak, e.g. entering data in a structure and rarely (or never) removing entries.
You might be measuring the memory usage of your memory incorrectly. On Linux memory usage measurements are not as straight-forward as they seem. How have you measured your memory usage?
You should consider using the application hooks (Valgrind calls them client requests) of whatever memory analysis tool your are using, to avoid the issue with reports only being issued at program termination. Using those hooks might help you pin-point the location of your leak.
You should try using a heap profiler, such as massif from Valgrind, to look for memory allocation locations with inordinate amounts of allocated memory.
Make sure you are not using a custom allocator or garbage collector in your application. As far as I know, no memory analysis tool will work with a custom allocator without user interference.
If your memory leak is massive enough to be detectable within an acceptable amount of application run-time, you could try a binary search of old revisions through your version control system to identify the commit that introduced the problem. At least Mercurial
and Git offer built-in support for this task.
If by "did not help" you mean it did not report memory leaks, it is quite possible you don't have one and just use more and more memory that is still referenced by pointers and can be deleted.
To help you debug the problem, perhaps in your logging, you should also write memory size, number of objects (their type) and a few other stats which are useful to you. At least until you become more familiar with the tools you mentioned.
I have developed a library with Qt/C++ and now I want to sure about memory leak testing,
I found Valgrind and seems a good detector(I still don't work with it), but is there another tool(s) for testing for memory leak?
Yes, as Als has pointed out in a comment and from my personal experience, I would also recommend going with valgrind. There are various options such as --leak-check=yes etc. that you might use. Once you run valgrind, it outputs some recommend options that you can include in the next run.
The problem Valgrind is attempting, i.e., of finding memory leaks, is a complex problem. Sometimes valgrind gets confused and outputs false positives, i.e., it shows a memory leak at a place where there is none. But, other than this, valgrind is quite user-friendly and useful.
You could do the memory leak check yourself without much additional affort (depending on your code). Just provide your own versions of the operators new and delete. Use a container to store each memory address that is assigned within new. Remove it from the collection if delete is called. At the end of your program, check if the collection is empty.
Details can be e.g. found in Scott Meyers book Effective C++, Item 50.
I am debugging a (native) multi-threaded C++ application under Visual Studio 2008. On seemingly random occasions, I get a "Windows has triggered a break point..." error with a note that this might be due to a corruption in the heap. These errors won't always crash the application right away, although it is likely to crash short after.
The big problem with these errors is that they pop up only after the corruption has actually taken place, which makes them very hard to track and debug, especially on a multi-threaded application.
What sort of things can cause these errors?
How do I debug them?
Tips, tools, methods, enlightments... are welcome.
Application Verifier combined with Debugging Tools for Windows is an amazing setup. You can get both as a part of the Windows Driver Kit or the lighter Windows SDK. (Found out about Application Verifier when researching an earlier question about a heap corruption issue.) I've used BoundsChecker and Insure++ (mentioned in other answers) in the past too, although I was surprised how much functionality was in Application Verifier.
Electric Fence (aka "efence"), dmalloc, valgrind, and so forth are all worth mentioning, but most of these are much easier to get running under *nix than Windows. Valgrind is ridiculously flexible: I've debugged large server software with many heap issues using it.
When all else fails, you can provide your own global operator new/delete and malloc/calloc/realloc overloads -- how to do so will vary a bit depending on compiler and platform -- and this will be a bit of an investment -- but it may pay off over the long run. The desirable feature list should look familiar from dmalloc and electricfence, and the surprisingly excellent book Writing Solid Code:
sentry values: allow a little more space before and after each alloc, respecting maximum alignment requirement; fill with magic numbers (helps catch buffer overflows and underflows, and the occasional "wild" pointer)
alloc fill: fill new allocations with a magic non-0 value -- Visual C++ will already do this for you in Debug builds (helps catch use of uninitialized vars)
free fill: fill in freed memory with a magic non-0 value, designed to trigger a segfault if it's dereferenced in most cases (helps catch dangling pointers)
delayed free: don't return freed memory to the heap for a while, keep it free filled but not available (helps catch more dangling pointers, catches proximate double-frees)
tracking: being able to record where an allocation was made can sometimes be useful
Note that in our local homebrew system (for an embedded target) we keep the tracking separate from most of the other stuff, because the run-time overhead is much higher.
If you're interested in more reasons to overload these allocation functions/operators, take a look at my answer to "Any reason to overload global operator new and delete?"; shameless self-promotion aside, it lists other techniques that are helpful in tracking heap corruption errors, as well as other applicable tools.
Because I keep finding my own answer here when searching for alloc/free/fence values MS uses, here's another answer that covers Microsoft dbgheap fill values.
You can detect a lot of heap corruption problems by enabling Page Heap for your application . To do this you need to use gflags.exe that comes as a part of Debugging Tools For Windows
Run Gflags.exe and in the Image file options for your executable, check "Enable Page Heap" option.
Now restart your exe and attach to a debugger. With Page Heap enabled, the application will break into debugger whenever any heap corruption occurs.
To really slow things down and perform a lot of runtime checking, try adding the following at the top of your main() or equivalent in Microsoft Visual Studio C++
_CrtSetDbgFlag(_CRTDBG_ALLOC_MEM_DF | _CRTDBG_LEAK_CHECK_DF | _CRTDBG_CHECK_ALWAYS_DF );
A very relevant article is Debugging Heap corruption with Application Verifier and Debugdiag.
What sort of things can cause these errors?
Doing naughty things with memory, e.g. writing after the end of a buffer, or writing to a buffer after it's been freed back to the heap.
How do I debug them?
Use an instrument which adds automated bounds-checking to your executable: i.e. valgrind on Unix, or a tool like BoundsChecker (Wikipedia suggests also Purify and Insure++) on Windows.
Beware that these will slow your application, so they may be unusable if yours is a soft-real-time application.
Another possible debugging aid/tool might be MicroQuill's HeapAgent.
One quick tip, that I got from Detecting access to freed memory is this:
If you want to locate the error
quickly, without checking every
statement that accesses the memory
block, you can set the memory pointer
to an invalid value after freeing the
block:
#ifdef _DEBUG // detect the access to freed memory
#undef free
#define free(p) _free_dbg(p, _NORMAL_BLOCK); *(int*)&p = 0x666;
#endif
The best tool I found useful and worked every time is code review (with good code reviewers).
Other than code review, I'd first try Page Heap. Page Heap takes a few seconds to set up and with luck it might pinpoint your problem.
If no luck with Page Heap, download Debugging Tools for Windows from Microsoft and learn to use the WinDbg. Sorry couldn't give you more specific help, but debuging multi-threaded heap corruption is more an art than science. Google for "WinDbg heap corruption" and you should find many articles on the subject.
What type of allocation functions are you using? I recently hit a similar error using the Heap* style allocation functions.
It turned out that I was mistakenly creating the heap with the HEAP_NO_SERIALIZE option. This essentially makes the Heap functions run without thread safety. It's a performance improvement if used properly but shouldn't ever be used if you are using HeapAlloc in a multi-threaded program [1]. I only mention this because your post mentions you have a multi-threaded app. If you are using HEAP_NO_SERIALIZE anywhere, delete that and it will likely fix your problem.
[1] There are certain situations where this is legal, but it requires you to serialize calls to Heap* and is typically not the case for multi-threaded programs.
If these errors occur randomly, there is high probability that you encountered data-races. Please, check: do you modify shared memory pointers from different threads? Intel Thread Checker may help to detect such issues in multithreaded program.
You may also want to check to see whether you're linking against the dynamic or static C runtime library. If your DLL files are linking against the static C runtime library, then the DLL files have separate heaps.
Hence, if you were to create an object in one DLL and try to free it in another DLL, you would get the same message you're seeing above. This problem is referenced in another Stack Overflow question, Freeing memory allocated in a different DLL.
In addition to looking for tools, consider looking for a likely culprit. Is there any component you're using, perhaps not written by you, which may not have been designed and tested to run in a multithreaded environment? Or simply one which you do not know has run in such an environment.
The last time it happened to me, it was a native package which had been successfully used from batch jobs for years. But it was the first time at this company that it had been used from a .NET web service (which is multithreaded). That was it - they had lied about the code being thread safe.
You can use VC CRT Heap-Check macros for _CrtSetDbgFlag: _CRTDBG_CHECK_ALWAYS_DF or _CRTDBG_CHECK_EVERY_16_DF.._CRTDBG_CHECK_EVERY_1024_DF.
I'd like to add my experience. In the last few days, I solved an instance of this error in my application. In my particular case, the errors in the code were:
Removing elements from an STL collection while iterating over it (I believe there are debug flags in Visual Studio to catch these things; I caught it during code review)
This one is more complex, I'll divide it in steps:
From a native C++ thread, call back into managed code
In managed land, call Control.Invoke and dispose a managed object which wraps the native object to which the callback belongs.
Since the object is still alive inside the native thread (it will remain blocked in the callback call until Control.Invoke ends). I should clarify that I use boost::thread, so I use a member function as the thread function.
Solution: Use Control.BeginInvoke (my GUI is made with Winforms) instead so that the native thread can end before the object is destroyed (the callback's purpose is precisely notifying that the thread ended and the object can be destroyed).
I had a similar problem - and it popped up quite randomly. Perhaps something was corrupt in the build files, but I ended up fixing it by cleaning the project first then rebuilding.
So in addition to the other responses given:
What sort of things can cause these errors?
Something corrupt in the build file.
How do I debug them?
Cleaning the project and rebuilding. If it's fixed, this was likely the problem.
I have also faced this issue. In my case, I allocated for x size memory and appended the data for x+n size. So, when freeing it shown heap overflow. Just make sure your allocated memory sufficient and check for how many bytes added in the memory.
I fear that some of my code is causing memory leaks, and I'm not sure about how to check it. Is there a tool or something for MacOS X?
Thank you
Yes - there's an application called MallocDebug which is installed as part of the Xcode package.
You can find it in the /Developer/Applications/Performance Tools folder.
Apple has a good description of how to use MallocDebug on OS X on their developer pages.
document on finding leaks in general
enabling debug features of malloc in particular.
Of course UNIX provides a quick and dirty way of detecting memory leaks... top.
Launch your app and watch the system memory allocated to your process over time. If it continually grows when it shouldn't then there is likely a memory leak. At which point you break out Valgrind or use MallocDebug, etc.
Of course if you use smart pointers and/or RAII, then you shouldn't have memory leaks in your code, right? ;)))
THE BEST tool PERIOD for memory errors, leaks, etc. is Valgrind. Get started here. You dont need to do anything special in your code and this will report where the memory was allocated (with a full stack trace, even in C). Also, it'll detect writes to freed memory, uninitialized memory usage, and much more.
I'm working on a multithreaded C++ application that is corrupting the heap. The usual tools to locate this corruption seem to be inapplicable. Old builds (18 months old) of the source code exhibit the same behaviour as the most recent release, so this has been around for a long time and just wasn't noticed; on the downside, source deltas can't be used to identify when the bug was introduced - there are a lot of code changes in the repository.
The prompt for crashing behaviuor is to generate throughput in this system - socket transfer of data which is munged into an internal representation. I have a set of test data that will periodically cause the app to exception (various places, various causes - including heap alloc failing, thus: heap corruption).
The behaviour seems related to CPU power or memory bandwidth; the more of each the machine has, the easier it is to crash. Disabling a hyper-threading core or a dual-core core reduces the rate of (but does not eliminate) corruption. This suggests a timing related issue.
Now here's the rub:
When it's run under a lightweight debug environment (say Visual Studio 98 / AKA MSVC6) the heap corruption is reasonably easy to reproduce - ten or fifteen minutes pass before something fails horrendously and exceptions, like an alloc; when running under a sophisticated debug environment (Rational Purify, VS2008/MSVC9 or even Microsoft Application Verifier) the system becomes memory-speed bound and doesn't crash (Memory-bound: CPU is not getting above 50%, disk light is not on, the program's going as fast it can, box consuming 1.3G of 2G of RAM). So, I've got a choice between being able to reproduce the problem (but not identify the cause) or being able to idenify the cause or a problem I can't reproduce.
My current best guesses as to where to next is:
Get an insanely grunty box (to replace the current dev box: 2Gb RAM in an E6550 Core2 Duo); this will make it possible to repro the crash causing mis-behaviour when running under a powerful debug environment; or
Rewrite operators new and delete to use VirtualAlloc and VirtualProtect to mark memory as read-only as soon as it's done with. Run under MSVC6 and have the OS catch the bad-guy who's writing to freed memory. Yes, this is a sign of desperation: who the hell rewrites new and delete?! I wonder if this is going to make it as slow as under Purify et al.
And, no: Shipping with Purify instrumentation built in is not an option.
A colleague just walked past and asked "Stack Overflow? Are we getting stack overflows now?!?"
And now, the question: How do I locate the heap corruptor?
Update: balancing new[] and delete[] seems to have gotten a long way towards solving the problem. Instead of 15mins, the app now goes about two hours before crashing. Not there yet. Any further suggestions? The heap corruption persists.
Update: a release build under Visual Studio 2008 seems dramatically better; current suspicion rests on the STL implementation that ships with VS98.
Reproduce the problem. Dr Watson will produce a dump that might be helpful in further analysis.
I'll take a note of that, but I'm concerned that Dr Watson will only be tripped up after the fact, not when the heap is getting stomped on.
Another try might be using WinDebug as a debugging tool which is quite powerful being at the same time also lightweight.
Got that going at the moment, again: not much help until something goes wrong. I want to catch the vandal in the act.
Maybe these tools will allow you at least to narrow the problem to certain component.
I don't hold much hope, but desperate times call for...
And are you sure that all the components of the project have correct runtime library settings (C/C++ tab, Code Generation category in VS 6.0 project settings)?
No I'm not, and I'll spend a couple of hours tomorrow going through the workspace (58 projects in it) and checking they're all compiling and linking with the appropriate flags.
Update: This took 30 seconds. Select all projects in the Settings dialog, unselect until you find the project(s) that don't have the right settings (they all had the right settings).
My first choice would be a dedicated heap tool such as pageheap.exe.
Rewriting new and delete might be useful, but that doesn't catch the allocs committed by lower-level code. If this is what you want, better to Detour the low-level alloc APIs using Microsoft Detours.
Also sanity checks such as: verify your run-time libraries match (release vs. debug, multi-threaded vs. single-threaded, dll vs. static lib), look for bad deletes (eg, delete where delete [] should have been used), make sure you're not mixing and matching your allocs.
Also try selectively turning off threads and see when/if the problem goes away.
What does the call stack etc look like at the time of the first exception?
I have same problems in my work (we also use VC6 sometimes). And there is no easy solution for it. I have only some hints:
Try with automatic crash dumps on production machine (see Process Dumper). My experience says Dr. Watson is not perfect for dumping.
Remove all catch(...) from your code. They often hide serious memory exceptions.
Check Advanced Windows Debugging - there are lots of great tips for problems like yours. I recomend this with all my heart.
If you use STL try STLPort and checked builds. Invalid iterator are hell.
Good luck. Problems like yours take us months to solve. Be ready for this...
We've had pretty good luck by writing our own malloc and free functions. In production, they just call the standard malloc and free, but in debug, they can do whatever you want. We also have a simple base class that does nothing but override the new and delete operators to use these functions, then any class you write can simply inherit from that class. If you have a ton of code, it may be a big job to replace calls to malloc and free to the new malloc and free (don't forget realloc!), but in the long run it's very helpful.
In Steve Maguire's book Writing Solid Code (highly recommended), there are examples of debug stuff that you can do in these routines, like:
Keep track of allocations to find leaks
Allocate more memory than necessary and put markers at the beginning and end of memory -- during the free routine, you can ensure these markers are still there
memset the memory with a marker on allocation (to find usage of uninitialized memory) and on free (to find usage of free'd memory)
Another good idea is to never use things like strcpy, strcat, or sprintf -- always use strncpy, strncat, and snprintf. We've written our own versions of these as well, to make sure we don't write off the end of a buffer, and these have caught lots of problems too.
Run the original application with ADplus -crash -pn appnename.exe
When the memory issue pops-up you will get a nice big dump.
You can analyze the dump to figure what memory location was corrupted.
If you are lucky the overwrite memory is a unique string you can figure out where it came from. If you are not lucky, you will need to dig into win32 heap and figure what was the orignal memory characteristics. (heap -x might help)
After you know what was messed-up, you can narrow appverifier usage with special heap settings. i.e. you can specify what DLL you monitor, or what allocation size to monitor.
Hopefully this will speedup the monitoring enough to catch the culprit.
In my experience, I never needed full heap verifier mode, but I spent a lot of time analyzing the crash dump(s) and browsing sources.
P.S:
You can use DebugDiag to analyze the dumps.
It can point out the DLL owning the corrupted heap, and give you other usefull details.
You should attack this problem with both runtime and static analysis.
For static analysis consider compiling with PREfast (cl.exe /analyze). It detects mismatched delete and delete[], buffer overruns and a host of other problems. Be prepared, though, to wade through many kilobytes of L6 warning, especially if your project still has L4 not fixed.
PREfast is available with Visual Studio Team System and, apparently, as part of Windows SDK.
Is this in low memory conditions? If so it might be that new is returning NULL rather than throwing std::bad_alloc. Older VC++ compilers didn't properly implement this. There is an article about Legacy memory allocation failures crashing STL apps built with VC6.
The apparent randomness of the memory corruption sounds very much like a thread synchronization issue - a bug is reproduced depending on machine speed. If objects (chuncks of memory) are shared among threads and synchronization (critical section, mutex, semaphore, other) primitives are not on per-class (per-object, per-class) basis, then it is possible to come to a situation where class (chunk of memory) is deleted / freed while in use, or used after deleted / freed.
As a test for that, you could add synchronization primitives to each class and method. This will make your code slower because many objects will have to wait for each other, but if this eliminates the heap corruption, your heap-corruption problem will become a code optimization one.
You tried old builds, but is there a reason you can't keep going further back in the repository history and seeing exactly when the bug was introduced?
Otherwise, I would suggest adding simple logging of some kind to help track down the problem, though I am at a loss of what specifically you might want to log.
If you can find out what exactly CAN cause this problem, via google and documentation of the exceptions you are getting, maybe that will give further insight on what to look for in the code.
My first action would be as follows:
Build the binaries in "Release" version but creating debug info file (you will find this possibility in project settings).
Use Dr Watson as a defualt debugger (DrWtsn32 -I) on a machine on which you want to reproduce the problem.
Repdroduce the problem. Dr Watson will produce a dump that might be helpful in further analysis.
Another try might be using WinDebug as a debugging tool which is quite powerful being at the same time also lightweight.
Maybe these tools will allow you at least to narrow the problem to certain component.
And are you sure that all the components of the project have correct runtime library settings (C/C++ tab, Code Generation category in VS 6.0 project settings)?
So from the limited information you have, this can be a combination of one or more things:
Bad heap usage, i.e., double frees, read after free, write after free, setting the HEAP_NO_SERIALIZE flag with allocs and frees from multiple threads on the same heap
Out of memory
Bad code (i.e., buffer overflows, buffer underflows, etc.)
"Timing" issues
If it's at all the first two but not the last, you should have caught it by now with either pageheap.exe.
Which most likely means it is due to how the code is accessing shared memory. Unfortunately, tracking that down is going to be rather painful. Unsynchronized access to shared memory often manifests as weird "timing" issues. Things like not using acquire/release semantics for synchronizing access to shared memory with a flag, not using locks appropriately, etc.
At the very least, it would help to be able to track allocations somehow, as was suggested earlier. At least then you can view what actually happened up until the heap corruption and attempt to diagnose from that.
Also, if you can easily redirect allocations to multiple heaps, you might want to try that to see if that either fixes the problem or results in more reproduceable buggy behavior.
When you were testing with VS2008, did you run with HeapVerifier with Conserve Memory set to Yes? That might reduce the performance impact of the heap allocator. (Plus, you have to run with it Debug->Start with Application Verifier, but you may already know that.)
You can also try debugging with Windbg and various uses of the !heap command.
MSN
Graeme's suggestion of custom malloc/free is a good idea. See if you can characterize some pattern about the corruption to give you a handle to leverage.
For example, if it is always in a block of the same size (say 64 bytes) then change your malloc/free pair to always allocate 64 byte chunks in their own page. When you free a 64 byte chunk then set the memory protection bits on that page to prevent reads and wites (using VirtualQuery). Then anyone attempting to access this memory will generate an exception rather than corrupting the heap.
This does assume that the number of outstanding 64 byte chunks is only moderate or you have a lot of memory to burn in the box!
If you choose to rewrite new/delete, I have done this and have simple source code at:
http://gandolf.homelinux.org/~smhanov/blog/?id=10
This catches memory leaks and also inserts guard data before and after the memory block to capture heap corruption. You can just integrate with it by putting #include "debug.h" at the top of every CPP file, and defining DEBUG and DEBUG_MEM.
The little time I had to solve a similar problem.
If the problem still exists I suggest you do this :
Monitor all calls to new/delete and malloc/calloc/realloc/free.
I make single DLL exporting a function for register all calls. This function receive parameter for identifying your code source, pointer to allocated area and type of call saving this information in a table.
All allocated/freed pair is eliminated. At the end or after you need you make a call to an other function for create report for left data.
With this you can identify wrong calls (new/free or malloc/delete) or missing.
If have any case of buffer overwritten in your code the information saved can be wrong but each test may detect/discover/include a solution of failure identified. Many runs to help identify the errors.
Good luck.
Do you think this is a race condition? Are multiple threads sharing one heap? Can you give each thread a private heap with HeapCreate, then they can run fast with HEAP_NO_SERIALIZE. Otherwise, a heap should be thread safe, if you're using the multi-threaded version of the system libraries.
A couple of suggestions. You mention the copious warnings at W4 - I would suggest taking the time to fix your code to compile cleanly at warning level 4 - this will go a long way to preventing subtle hard to find bugs.
Second - for the /analyze switch - it does indeed generate copious warnings. To use this switch in my own project, what I did was to create a new header file that used #pragma warning to turn off all the additional warnings generated by /analyze. Then further down in the file, I turn on only those warnings I care about. Then use the /FI compiler switch to force this header file to be included first in all your compilation units. This should allow you to use the /analyze switch while controling the output