Re: [PATCH v3] test-lib.sh: Use GLIBC_TUNABLES instead of MALLOC_CHECK_ on glibc >= 2.34
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 4, 2022, 20:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <975e203d-6bd3-f5ea-c21b-3e7518a04bb9@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20220304133702.26706-1-gitter.spiros@gmail.com>
On 04/03/2022 13:37, Elia Pinto wrote:
Show 37 quoted lines
> In glibc >= 2.34 MALLOC_CHECK_ and MALLOC_PERTURB_ environment
> variables have been replaced by GLIBC_TUNABLES. Also the new
> glibc requires that you preload a library called libc_malloc_debug.so
> to get these features.
>
> Using the ordinary glibc system variable detect if this is glibc >= 2.34 and
> use GLIBC_TUNABLES and the new library.
>
> This patch was inspired by a Richard W.M. Jones ndbkit patch
>
> Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com>
> ---
> This is the third version of the patch.
>
> Compared to the second version[1], the code is further simplified,
> eliminating a case statement and modifying a string statement.
>
> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/msg433917.html
>
> t/test-lib.sh | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
> index 9af5fb7674..4d10646015 100644
> --- a/t/test-lib.sh
> +++ b/t/test-lib.sh
> @@ -550,9 +550,25 @@ else
> setup_malloc_check () {
> MALLOC_CHECK_=3 MALLOC_PERTURB_=165
> export MALLOC_CHECK_ MALLOC_PERTURB_
> + if _GLIBC_VERSION=$(getconf GNU_LIBC_VERSION 2>/dev/null) &&
> + _GLIBC_VERSION=${_GLIBC_VERSION#"glibc "} &&
> + expr 2.34 \<= "$_GLIBC_VERSION" >/dev/null
> + then
> + g=
> + LD_PRELOAD="libc_malloc_debug.so.0"When compiling with "SANITIZE = address,leak" this use of LD_PRELOAD makes the tests fail with
==9750==ASan runtime does not come first in initial library list; you should either link runtime to your application or manually preload it with LD_PRELOAD.
because libc_malloc_debug.so is being loaded before libasan.so. If I set TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK=1 when I run the tests then ASAN does not complain but it would be nicer if I did not have to do that. I'm confused as to why the CI leak tests are running fine - am I missing something with my setup?
Best Wishes
Phillip