From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586371F4D7 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 18:05:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="UL3poum2"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1344299AbiFISFI (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2022 14:05:08 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34550 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238630AbiFISFH (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2022 14:05:07 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B687F21912B for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id u12so49045969eja.8 for ; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t4PbWFNXknS3NH8uFMhd8ZLEKOfyT0jMcvuV5EoAdbA=; b=UL3poum2DTPne3nsIJtOvrZnEJF97/a/bN8Ymp9eKbNjiwoyuxrJ2APyo7rnd8G1a0 d55iqaQQQtEVzTuwWaNs1r+jqBYsAaqnKsYEU5vCUMZf0vLwMuLm0bFZcpNEloTg/VSR 8b7Byzs+AmsRuBBmFHxi1qxGYFic/WrWWA/Gwr35XHoBogsZUmQx1SbwrYB2aa3G+d8Y S9k4JlvNyQtkE62QAoW1zz1revAgOiijKL1oUupi2glOuyFrcc+v/BrhZdx8ztkEaIKg /P4pGQLe/YG3spPu1mvCbt7Fy0W2gEeR3udgt+/GA17RShPKwTC6JssIP+6SaAwtJQAK UtcQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t4PbWFNXknS3NH8uFMhd8ZLEKOfyT0jMcvuV5EoAdbA=; b=OO/xZ8qZVfSHlKg0JMTFL00Wwd/pRuqKZrwFRtwB6BC8TQBRltk/CsuwQy7cbV9kIU W9PTLP6Y/vhZhLNAPRdtCX3qJlAQDcA85ok8gUdk5JAt5VzipUUrdiddw2LO4Bm6I1a0 HtHGWb2o/7FCd67IkyiNj//1/oVR5Qz+NaY37fFTK4VvnEQz3y5rafN5FeyKoeVTLiBN kUYZJmc0vtFXl1Aiez6iAlimvqx+nGvINDxZ9UMr7a0QYjGnDQcH5NkCXUbVXgifvr+w XHVtv+0w/AgsfjOKkSKvGyH3tDfWmPs6RM84B/DC8D/Lqv1fgDjJZQXB/7NF72Omnh2i rzJA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533kPpl8tl8cW4O6ABEkSWY0kwqoDvmBpv8qZEjUAIhq2b5/VPcW Q/CS19uYOXe/lWPvdHGEdj4CYWuhjg0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxi6cCeoZUGakmmKDUZJree35PqSHDcLSXpyvVDrIhXMhK73VXGKtwuk1iS1tJB82PHNylCCA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2885:b0:711:4611:95cc with SMTP id o5-20020a170906288500b00711461195ccmr25270175ejd.38.1654797902647; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 11:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmgdl (dhcp-077-248-183-071.chello.nl. [77.248.183.71]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q6-20020a1709060f8600b00711edab7622sm3473826ejj.40.2022.06.09.11.05.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 09 Jun 2022 11:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avar by gmgdl with local (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1nzMWj-0031dN-GB; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 20:05:01 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jonathan Tan , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] connected: distinguish local/remote bad objects Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 20:00:05 +0200 References: <20220608210537.185094-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid; Emacs 27.1; mu4e 1.7.12 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <220609.86zgilsofm.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 09 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Tan writes: > >> builtin/fetch.c | 2 +- >> connected.c | 1 + >> revision.c | 16 ++++++++++++-- >> revision.h | 3 +++ >> t/t5518-fetch-exit-status.sh | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 5 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > This seems to break linux-leaks CI job by making 5518, which was > marked in some topic in flight to expect to be leak-free, fail. > > Because of the way linux-leaks test framework is done, it is not > easy to tell if the code changes essential to this topic introduced > new leaks, in which case we would want to fix that. I think this is just an existing leak that happens to be exposed by a new (in this file) test, i.e. transport_get() leaks via an xmalloc() for transport_helper. > Note that this may not the fault of the code changes in this patch. > If the tests added by the patch started using git commands that are > known to leak (i.e. not ready to be subjected to the "leaks" test) > in order to prepare the scenario or to inspect the result, even if > the code changes in this topic did not introduce any leak, we can > see the same breakage in linux-leaks CI job. An easy way out would > be to disable leak-check CI for the entire 5518, but that is not > very satisfactory, as the earlier part of that script should still > be leak-free. I think doing that would be fine in this case. It will get easier to fix leaks now that "struct rev_info" is out of the way (and I've got a lot of pending patches), but I can always loop back & re-mark this particular test as leak-free at some future date. > Another way out might be to add these two tests in a > new script, which is not marked as not-leaking. After all, what the > new topic adds is not about exit status but how that exit status > comes about, so it might not be a bad idea even without the CI leak > stuff anyway. Yeah, that sounds especially good in this case, as if we can't run httpd we'll print a meaningful "skip" message in that case. See 0a2bfccb9c8 (t0051: use "skip_all" under !MINGW in single-test file, 2022-02-04) > =C3=86var, does the internal state used for revision walking count as > leaking when it is still held by the time we hit die() in > bad_object(), or anything on stack when we die() are still reachable > and won't be reported as a failure? No, but in this case the variable containing the leaked data isn't in scope by the time we exit, i.e. it was used by fetch_one() which had it malloc'd, but the struct it lived in went away, and now we're exiting from cmd_fetch() etc.