From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:09:58 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] test-lib: have SANITIZE=leak imply TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK
Message-ID: <a013246a-777c-acf8-d2c1-3bf9b78aa9e8@dunelm.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <patch-1.1-e31681731b7-20220928T095041Z-avarab@gmail.com>

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