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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD99C1F953 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 21:31:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236166AbhJZVdN (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 17:33:13 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40128 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235155AbhJZVdM (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 17:33:12 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-x134.google.com (mail-il1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9472CC061570 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x134.google.com with SMTP id h20so753321ila.4 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=MnmPT+CcLr9cA3oRG/uStODklaOMMlQSUoojNpmo8CA=; b=TohY2itpOT99bM5Ae/5gf3utW/PW3auc2QVokHO13HzX7Zhsi6UPu7hwTIqCeqghf1 dNrQbwqGpHl5gC1DEI40j3HgF8HqWF0FamT2y/cnHWYJb6mi6m2Z8Z0cgXJz/V93eA5g TK9exv2GsbK7Vm+gqNZ2+DEcjytvp0X0/JhaEaShRBFSAuTEeozUPGHpK+BcjjZTtXAi daZhw8dyiKx20IYf55G11k5XSblVWXDIS003P8h71v9T7QptvHO6Q7Jn3oEeYWqNloVL 1vIBrc1WUXu0I8KOVL70BsZW7B7IB1HGZBWwRfURKKY91lUOOQLeIZyXb2OW+e4xn3dd EKlw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=MnmPT+CcLr9cA3oRG/uStODklaOMMlQSUoojNpmo8CA=; b=XZOF9OnVKtvu/NuYjIvbhV4WpskC3vYFMheeItShfPmyQa7Tc4/2NBxrl9qn+A3EPF d4Fx0+ZGn0LtKMErZlsOTzRsHHdopZaX42QR2h3wCy+oDAc+5HHtUavPFOLGvCN1M8Ue +702SeYhQkAkOoXTL6pS+iS+JSNyYEdUOsnizjhtu0oog0DtowcnLsLwDbOT2hgx8DkZ NFKgaA9aWvGrLGCVSkyguYkqWSL8W3Df7Db1QRAB3u80O6IFzwjqVbuersIXiNqFO7ne N0fTn6XANKdZtx1ql3UAX+RDpp+ClSiF+GOC57YjneSSqMxZkzfd5qTbCT/RhElMH5y1 gQIw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53072whlVO4amVgbbeU+qm+Bj5XX5ASlWfNiLQ1NhiKtO7xtSTCB BUPcjrOrE8txIJxHnvZl+VZgMg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz5IsJ3VQBNfK63VMbsz9U8x79k03JpIp9fCtifcTZHuGFLIPDxglVBeIkuxKSrSMBXvl6jfA== X-Received: by 2002:a92:c541:: with SMTP id a1mr16021173ilj.61.1635283847956; Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z11sm10265370ilb.11.2021.10.26.14.30.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 26 Oct 2021 14:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 17:30:47 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Jeff King Cc: Taylor Blau , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH] leak tests: add an interface to the LSAN_OPTIONS "suppressions" Message-ID: References: <211022.86sfwtl6uj.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 04:23:14PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > So this all feels like a bug in ASan to me. I'm curious if it works on > > your system, but in the meantime I think the best path forward is to > > drop the last patch of my original series (the one with the three > > UNLEAK() calls) and to avoid relying on this patch for the time being. > > Bugs aside, I'd much rather see UNLEAK() annotations than external ones, > for all the reasons we introduced UNLEAK() in the first place: > > - it keeps the annotations near the code. Yes, that creates conflicts > when the code is changed (or the leak is actually fixed), but that's > a feature. It keeps them from going stale. I agree completely. I noted as much in my message here: https://lore.kernel.org/git/YXJAfICQN8s5Gm7s@nand.local/ but Ævar made it sound like his work would be made much easier without the conflict. Since I'm not in any kind of rush to make t5319 leak-free, I figured that queueing the parts of that series that wouldn't conflict with Ævar's ongoing work would be a net-positive. > - leak-checkers only know where things are allocated, not who is > supposed to own them. So you're often annotating the wrong thing; > it's not a strdup() call which is buggy and leaking, but the > function five layers up the stack which was supposed to take > ownership and didn't. TBH, I find this much more compelling. Either way, I don't feel strongly enough to deviate from v2 much, and I don't want to create more work for Ævar along the way. Thanks, Taylor