From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A92E8FDC3 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 01:33:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239603AbjJDBdi (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2023 21:33:38 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41664 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230274AbjJDBdh (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2023 21:33:37 -0400 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com (out02.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.232]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A571AB for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 18:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]:56944) by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1qnqlZ-00EQoU-R5; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 19:33:34 -0600 Received: from ip68-227-168-167.om.om.cox.net ([68.227.168.167]:60926 helo=email.froward.int.ebiederm.org.xmission.com) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1qnqlZ-008lnf-0c; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 19:33:33 -0600 From: "Eric W. Biederman" To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org References: <20231003202504.GA7697@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2023 20:33:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20231003202504.GA7697@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 3 Oct 2023 16:25:04 -0400") Message-ID: <878r8j2mu1.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1qnqlZ-008lnf-0c;;;mid=<878r8j2mu1.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.227.168.167;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=pass X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX193O3uM1JeVlHCbM3I0iW4eP3Jw7+/PIXY= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.227.168.167 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Is SANITIZE=leak make test unreliable for anyone else? X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sat, 08 Feb 2020 21:53:50 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff, Please accept my apologies for slightly hijacking your posting, but I see you have been fixing some leaks, and so presumably you are familiar with building git with "SANITIZE=leak". I have fixed some leaks in my SHA1+SHA256 patchset recently and while tracking them down I found that simply enabling SANITIZE=leak caused "make test" on git v2.42 without patches to give different failures from test run to test run. Well actually I wound up with the following command line: GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true SANITIZE=leak DEVELOPER=1 make test I had removed "-j32" to make things more reproducible. I observed this unreliability with SANITIZE=leak when building git on an fully updated version of debian 12. My big question is: Do other people see random test failures when SANITIZE=leak is enabled? Is it just me? Thanks, Eric