[PATCH] test-lib: have SANITIZE=leak imply TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK

[PATCH] test-lib: have SANITIZE=leak imply TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

Since 131b94a10a7 (test-lib.sh: Use GLIBC_TUNABLES instead of
MALLOC_CHECK_ on glibc >= 2.34, 2022-03-04) compiling with
SANITIZE=leak has missed reporting some leaks. The old MALLOC_CHECK
method used before glibc 2.34 seems to have been (mostly?) compatible
with it, but after 131b94a10a7 e.g. running:

	TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK=1 make SANITIZE=leak test T=t6437-submodule-merge.sh

Would report a leak in builtin/commit.c, but this would not:

	TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK= make SANITIZE=leak test T=t6437-submodule-merge.sh

Since the interaction is clearly breaking the SANITIZE=leak mode,
let's mark them as explicitly incompatible.

A related regression for SANITIZE=address was fixed in
067109a5e7d (tests: make SANITIZE=address imply TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK,
2022-04-09).

Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
---

Junio: I think this is worth considering for v2.38.0. We've had this
check since v2.36.0

But 2.34 just recently got migrated to Debian testing (just a few days
ago), I suspect other distros are either upgrading to it now, or will
soon: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/glibc;

When I upgraded to it I discovered that all of our tests pass with
SANITIZE=leak, i.e. unless TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK=1 is provided we
completely disable the LeakSanitizer in favor of glibc.

 t/test-lib.sh | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
index a65df2fd220..02f438d47ec 100644
--- a/t/test-lib.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib.sh
@@ -563,8 +563,10 @@ case $GIT_TEST_FSYNC in
 esac
 
 # Add libc MALLOC and MALLOC_PERTURB test only if we are not executing
-# the test with valgrind and have not compiled with SANITIZE=address.
+# the test with valgrind and have not compiled with conflict SANITIZE
+# options.
 if test -n "$valgrind" ||
+   test -n "$SANITIZE_LEAK" ||
    test -n "$SANITIZE_ADDRESS" ||
    test -n "$TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK"
 then
-- 
2.38.0.rc1.925.gb61c5ccd7da

Re: [PATCH] test-lib: have SANITIZE=leak imply TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK

[Rubén Justo]

On 28/9/22 12:01, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Since 131b94a10a7 (test-lib.sh: Use GLIBC_TUNABLES instead of
> MALLOC_CHECK_ on glibc >= 2.34, 2022-03-04) compiling with
> SANITIZE=leak has missed reporting some leaks. The old MALLOC_CHECK
> method used before glibc 2.34 seems to have been (mostly?) compatible
> with it, but after 131b94a10a7 e.g. running:
> 
> 	TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK=1 make SANITIZE=leak test T=t6437-submodule-merge.sh
> 
> Would report a leak in builtin/commit.c, but this would not:
> 
> 	TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK= make SANITIZE=leak test T=t6437-submodule-merge.sh
> 
> Since the interaction is clearly breaking the SANITIZE=leak mode,
> let's mark them as explicitly incompatible.
> 
> A related regression for SANITIZE=address was fixed in
> 067109a5e7d (tests: make SANITIZE=address imply TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK,
> 2022-04-09).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
> Junio: I think this is worth considering for v2.38.0. We've had this
> check since v2.36.0
> 
> But 2.34 just recently got migrated to Debian testing (just a few days
> ago), I suspect other distros are either upgrading to it now, or will
> soon: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/glibc;
> 
> When I upgraded to it I discovered that all of our tests pass with
> SANITIZE=leak, i.e. unless TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK=1 is provided we
> completely disable the LeakSanitizer in favor of glibc.
> 
>  t/test-lib.sh | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
> index a65df2fd220..02f438d47ec 100644
> --- a/t/test-lib.sh
> +++ b/t/test-lib.sh
> @@ -563,8 +563,10 @@ case $GIT_TEST_FSYNC in
>  esac
>  
>  # Add libc MALLOC and MALLOC_PERTURB test only if we are not executing
> -# the test with valgrind and have not compiled with SANITIZE=address.
> +# the test with valgrind and have not compiled with conflict SANITIZE
> +# options.
>  if test -n "$valgrind" ||
> +   test -n "$SANITIZE_LEAK" ||
>     test -n "$SANITIZE_ADDRESS" ||
>     test -n "$TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK"
>  then
> 

Thank you! A quick test with this on master shows clearly the leak in ref-filter.c
we discussed recently.  No need to dig with valgrind.  I also found that other case
you pointed out, from checkout. I'll reroll with that if you don't mind.

It is nice to have this working.

Thanks.

Un saludo.

Re: [PATCH] test-lib: have SANITIZE=leak imply TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK

[Phillip Wood]

On 28/09/2022 11:01, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Since 131b94a10a7 (test-lib.sh: Use GLIBC_TUNABLES instead of
> MALLOC_CHECK_ on glibc >= 2.34, 2022-03-04) compiling with
> SANITIZE=leak has missed reporting some leaks. The old MALLOC_CHECK
> method used before glibc 2.34 seems to have been (mostly?) compatible
> with it, but after 131b94a10a7 e.g. running:
> 
> 	TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK=1 make SANITIZE=leak test T=t6437-submodule-merge.sh
> 
> Would report a leak in builtin/commit.c, but this would not:
> 
> 	TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK= make SANITIZE=leak test T=t6437-submodule-merge.sh
> 
> Since the interaction is clearly breaking the SANITIZE=leak mode,
> let's mark them as explicitly incompatible.
> 
> A related regression for SANITIZE=address was fixed in
> 067109a5e7d (tests: make SANITIZE=address imply TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK,
> 2022-04-09).

Oh so the LD_PRELOAD breaks both sanitizers but only one of them complains

>   # Add libc MALLOC and MALLOC_PERTURB test only if we are not executing
> -# the test with valgrind and have not compiled with SANITIZE=address.
> +# the test with valgrind and have not compiled with conflict SANITIZE
> +# options.
>   if test -n "$valgrind" ||
> +   test -n "$SANITIZE_LEAK" ||
>      test -n "$SANITIZE_ADDRESS" ||
>      test -n "$TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK"

The indentation is dodgy, also it would be nice to keep these in 
alphabetical order. Other than that this looks like a sensible fix.

Best Wishes

Phillip

Re: [PATCH] test-lib: have SANITIZE=leak imply TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK

[Junio C Hamano]

Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:

> Oh so the LD_PRELOAD breaks both sanitizers but only one of them complains
>
>>   # Add libc MALLOC and MALLOC_PERTURB test only if we are not executing
>> -# the test with valgrind and have not compiled with SANITIZE=address.
>> +# the test with valgrind and have not compiled with conflict SANITIZE
>> +# options.
>>   if test -n "$valgrind" ||
>> +   test -n "$SANITIZE_LEAK" ||
>>      test -n "$SANITIZE_ADDRESS" ||
>>      test -n "$TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK"
>
> The indentation is dodgy, also it would be nice to keep these in
> alphabetical order. Other than that this looks like a sensible fix.

Thanks, both.

Will re-queue with a local fix-up for the indentation.  As to the
ordering, I usually prefer to have new ones appended to the last
unless there are other reasons, and "keep them sorted" is such a
reason, so I may do so as well while at it.