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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 36CBA1F403 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 00:01:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229707AbiJKAAl (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2022 20:00:41 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39552 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229699AbiJKAAi (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2022 20:00:38 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD1C179EDF for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 17:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 29558 invoked by uid 109); 11 Oct 2022 00:00:32 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 00:00:32 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 14895 invoked by uid 111); 11 Oct 2022 00:00:33 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 20:00:33 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 20:00:31 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ci: add address and undefined sanitizer tasks Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 04:25:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano > > --- > > * I've been running my local post-integration-pre-pushout tests of > > 'seen' with these two sanitizer tests, which has saved me from a > > few potential embarrassments early. As it takes a lot extra time > > to run these locally, I am aiming to burden contributors who run > > their due diligence "before sending the patch" checks using the > > GitHub Actions CI ;-). > > > > The way the patch adds jobs to CI just imitates how -leaks one is > > defined. > > One downside is that the usual CI cycle for a branch that takes a > bit shorter than 40 minutes seems to take between 50 to 60 minutes > (the primary culprit seems to be the address sanitizer). > > Arguably, that 10 or 20 minutes are time saved from human > developers' time, so it might not be too bad, but I'll keep > it out of 'next' for now. You can make it a bit faster by running both at once as SANITIZE=address,undefined. Since we expect both to pass cleanly, there's really no other complication; the user will either see errors (and correct them) or they won't. The signal of "passed with asan, but not ubsan" (or vice versa) is not that useful in practice. In the long run, I hope that "leaks" can run in the same way, but we're not there yet since there's a lot of selective test-running. In theory the regular linux test run is not necessary with this job, but I think the signal for "broke with/without sanitizers" is a little higher (and anyway, we have to run the regular suite on a zillion other platforms, too). -Peff