Re: [PATCH 1/4] t0080: mark as leak-free

["Rubén Justo" <rjusto@gmail.com>]

On 29-ene-2024 15:51:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >> The point of the t-basic tests is to ensure the lightweight unit
> >> test framework that requires nothing from Git behaves (and keeps
> >> behaving) sensibly.  The point of running t[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]
> >> tests under leak sanitizer is to exercise production Git code to
> >> catch leaks in Git code.
> >> 
> >> So it is not quite clear if we even want to run this t0080 under
> >> leak sanitizer to begin with.  t0080 is a relatively tiny test, but
> >> do we even want to spend leak sanitizer cycles on it?  I dunno.
> >
> > IIUC, that would imply building test-tool with a different set of flags
> > than Git, new artifacts ...  or running test-tool with some LSAN_OPTIONS
> > options, to disable it ...  or both ... or ...
> >
> > And that is assuming that with test-tool we won't catch a leak in Git
> > that we're not seeing in the other tests ...
> 
> But t0080 does not even run test-tool, does it?  The t-basic unit
> test is about testing the unit test framework and does not even
> trigger any of the half-libified Git code.  So I am not sure why
> you are bringing up test-tool into the picture.

Of course, test-tool has nothing to do here.  I think I got distracted
because:

  $ ( cd t; ./t0080-unit-test-output.sh )
  Bail out! You need to build test-tool; Run "make t/helper/test-tool" in the source (toplevel) directory

My reasoning was about t/unit-test/bin/t-basic (though also applies to
test-tool), due to:

  $ make SANITIZE=leak -n t/unit-tests/bin/t-basic 
  ...
  echo '   ' LINK t/unit-tests/bin/t-basic;cc   -g -O2 -Wall -I. \
  -DHAVE_SYSINFO -fsanitize=leak -fno-sanitize-recover=leak \
  -fno-omit-frame-pointer -DSUPPRESS_ANNOTATED_LEAKS -O0 \
  -DGIT_HOST_CPU="\"x86_64\"" -DHAVE_ALLOCA_H  -DUSE_CURL_FOR_IMAP_SEND \
  -DSUPPORTS_SIMPLE_IPC -DSHA1_DC -DSHA1DC_NO_STANDARD_INCLUDES \
  -DSHA1DC_INIT_SAFE_HASH_DEFAULT=0 \
  -DSHA1DC_CUSTOM_INCLUDE_SHA1_C="\"git-compat-util.h\"" \
  -DSHA1DC_CUSTOM_INCLUDE_UBC_CHECK_C="\"git-compat-util.h\"" -DSHA256_BLK \
  -DHAVE_PATHS_H -DHAVE_DEV_TTY -DHAVE_CLOCK_GETTIME \
  -DHAVE_CLOCK_MONOTONIC -DHAVE_SYNC_FILE_RANGE -DHAVE_GETDELIM \
  '-DPROCFS_EXECUTABLE_PATH="/proc/self/exe"' -DFREAD_READS_DIRECTORIES \
  -DNO_STRLCPY -DSHELL_PATH='"/bin/sh"' -o t/unit-tests/bin/t-basic   \
  t/unit-tests/t-basic.o t/unit-tests/test-lib.o common-main.o libgit.a \
  xdiff/lib.a reftable/libreftable.a libgit.a xdiff/lib.a \
  reftable/libreftable.a libgit.a -lz -lpthread -lrt

Note that we inject this flags:
  -fsanitize=leak -fno-sanitize-recover=leak -fno-omit-frame-pointer \
  -DSUPPRESS_ANNOTATED_LEAKS -O0

> 
> > Maybe this is tangential to this series but,  while a decision is being
> > made, annotating the test makes GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check
> > pass, which is the objective in this series. 
> 
> One major reason why we want to set TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK to
> true is because that way the marked test will be run under the leak
> sanitizer in the CI.
> 
> What do we expect to gain by running t0080, which is to run the
> t-basic unit test, under the leak sanitizer?  Unlike other
> t[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] tests that exercise Git production code, would
> we care about a new leak found in t-basic run from t0080 in the
> first place?
> 
> Annotating with TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK is not a goal by itself.

Indeed.  It points to a horizon.

> Annotating the tests that we want to run under the sanitizer and see
> them passing with it is.

Maybe this is also a horizon (not reachable by definition), and
expecting "make test" to be leak-free (including t0080) a good path
towards that horizon, IMHO.  But you are right, those leak sanitizer
cycles may not be worth it.

> And obviously these tests that exercise
> Git production code are very good candidates for us to do so.  It is
> unclear if t0080 falls into the same category.  That is why I asked
> what we expect to gain by running it.
> 
> Thanks.

Thank you for bringing up a good question.

I see you queued this as 4/4.  OK.  I'll consider that if a re-roll for
this series is needed.