[R-pkg-devel] Warnings related to functions from the survival package

[Tomas Kalibera]

On 10/31/24 21:06, Ivan Krylov wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 17:59:01 +0100
> Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera using gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> for now, if you know an elegant, minimal way how to suppress
>> this, and have the time and energy, a patch would be welcome
> A fresh R-4.4.2 build compiled with clang-19 -fsanitize=function gives
> the error:
>
> $ bin/R -q -s -e 'library(survival); survdiff(Surv(futime, fustat) ~ rx,data=ovarian)'
> dotcode.c:2008:2: runtime error: call to function survdiff2 through pointer to incorrect function type 'void (*)(void *, void *, void *, void *, void *, void *, void *, void *, void *, void *, void *, void *, void *)'
> /tmp/RtmpW0SC00/R.INSTALL5d1b3402d0c5/survival/src/survdiff2.c:10: note: survdiff2 defined here
> SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior dotcode.c:2008:2
>
> A suppression file will avoid the error without patching R:
>
> $ cat dotcode.supp
> function:dotcode.c
>
> or more fine-grained:
>
> $ cat dotcode.supp
> function:do_dotCode
>
> $ UBSAN_OPTIONS="suppressions=$(realpath dotcode.supp)" bin/R -q -s -e 'library(survival); survdiff(Surv(futime, fustat) ~ rx,data=ovarian)'
> Call:
> survdiff(formula = Surv(futime, fustat) ~ rx, data = ovarian)
> <and so on>
>
> Alternatively, the following patch will also suppress the error:
>
> --- src/main/dotcode.c     2024-03-26 23:02:08.000000000 +0000
> +++ src/main/dotcode.c  2024-10-31 19:53:36.272334541 +0000
> @@ -1658,6 +1658,9 @@
>   #define FILL 0xee
>   #define NG 64
>   
> +#ifdef __clang__
> +__attribute__((no_sanitize("function")))
> +#endif
>   attribute_hidden SEXP do_dotCode(SEXP call, SEXP op, SEXP args, SEXP env)
>   {
>       void **cargs, **cargs0 = NULL /* -Wall */;
>
> I hope I understood you correctly that you're looking for a tested
> workaround.

Thanks, yes - and there is also attribute_no_sanitizer_instrumentation 
in Defn.h - but isn't there a finer-grained way to suppress reports just 
of this particular issue, ideally at finer granularity than a function?

Tomas

>