From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b4-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 970A5154456 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:53:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.155 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731401623; cv=none; b=FVcur17YIeSv2rVyjVWeqXSYT8dRSHO7DTum0KIKI6ptzxbmA9T74XKgSN3GZ1v5z19vykJkwwy2eQ4lx8KCe+DZvjSdSOCoglS7W1f0YmQ9W6fnKTKPei8CSU1fKPhanlNJ+1f3jNLYiW4OqRcSP5aq/26swjgEisGXaYT0spA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731401623; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jV9G8egWU8uXgZ20lhrJldx4cq55P12ZgASCKYQIOF8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=E1PBMRmbvAEMTnbHu5tSLihSmEjcfTpH3uJaiQHw9O145ULr3Q3sSe/+OZ6PlMy7RsrRV6CFms/+eWwoRGpeVLzoIdsPLeOuMlnn4aCpHg2XY5x2BGuRFmGfJV/Ai93cCUdyDthlI4v/ml1sxIivr/q/t1S+g0PmcqVKGduMtQI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=p6cPECa+; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=kSYYSkjj; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.155 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="p6cPECa+"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="kSYYSkjj" Received: from phl-compute-10.internal (phl-compute-10.phl.internal [10.202.2.50]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B652540143; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:53:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-10.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:53:40 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1731401620; x=1731488020; bh=ZnAEmHBLRC SntJABoSjNr6zwcuji2JDiEQlwbT/rCT0=; b=p6cPECa+5ffQfZRW2ht1NYpa8E Q6QYOnCBWa/XFpFEkhz0lQpV9anBqnGO77Zt7xT1M5vpHgr1GOWlJMHmBGs8uosZ V3WDuO6qeomTVNvNx5fNk7WS4BRe8fMqPswR2a81jFT630+gqi9iICAIc+uTk7hM QfiCLBbwcPcOpktXiOb4ow/uDunsOKEx8QBtjEbKJte47ZiKHhEFttbH5x/QsAoJ YRWgt/BjEPeEMXwnoWofZmFRtilF8nNdhdCXTVAWvTlGR7sUgq+nivV5nodKzOva 1vOubyIJJM3ehcqao3K4ZB9DueaROV/n9Z8ejmmwWdYA+Flu+geTgfJx3S+Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1731401620; x=1731488020; bh=ZnAEmHBLRCSntJABoSjNr6zwcuji2JDiEQl wbT/rCT0=; b=kSYYSkjjcerRHS+FQij6FCvgQS4CPBNnCjiwCojp59R2mP1FWTK e4UzRDtNHKjJVFluWoTPpAbwBPqW63zzs1ZWGBWS+mkF2jJisqYWnCT8KyJNLagW 7KWSV6MZCzPqAzNVmj4V1pEekV+soxI8DRnuZUgPdRJJoUjbI4O1mPveO6G6Io3r /KmYme+rY0WDPhOZ2Q3YgC0deTnrkRUyOjmt3e9LEg+f1ORWvHz2+ppOqf3lrAWO p+jIFZl54KibdLUmKBuw8wuU0hiv9Co02lVvUfPTb/BkN1z3P+sWnr6HHu8kjrgr i/Ff19Nw+Iu+ha/yoWdWDJwV6zGo6FKZGQg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefuddrudefgdduvdegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvden ucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgtkhcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhssehpkhhsrdhimh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveekkeffhfeitdeludeigfejtdetvdelvdduhefgueeg udfghfeukefhjedvkedtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepfedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphgvfhhfsehpvghffhdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhope hrjhhushhtohesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgv rhhnvghlrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:53:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by vm-mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 0b4225d2 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:53:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:53:28 +0100 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?UnViw6lu?= Justo Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 21/27] global: drop `UNLEAK()` annotation Message-ID: References: <20241111-b4-pks-leak-fixes-pt10-v2-0-6154bf91f0b0@pks.im> <20241111-b4-pks-leak-fixes-pt10-v2-21-6154bf91f0b0@pks.im> <20241112082609.GA3166560@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241112082609.GA3166560@coredump.intra.peff.net> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 03:26:09AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > This neatly demonstrates one of the issues with `UNLEAK()`: it is quite > > easy for the annotation to become stale. A second issue is that its > > whole intent is to paper over leaks. And while that has been a necessary > > evil in the past, because Git was leaking left and right, it isn't > > really much of an issue nowadays where our test suite has no known leaks > > anymore. > > I do agree that stale annotations are a weakness (they do not hurt the > leak-checker if they exist, but they are an eye-sore). > > I'm not sure I would agree that the intent was to paper over leaks. The > point was to avoid noise from the leak-checker about memory that was > intentionally held until program exit and released by returning from > main(). I think the main thing that made it obsolete is that we decided > it was worth it to spend the cycles freeing that memory rather than > ignoring it. > > But it's possible I'm just splitting hairs. :) Yeah, I know that this was also used to mark memory that intentionally leaks because we're about to exit anyway. I basically consider that as some form of "papering over" it, but I get your comment that this may be a bit too strongly worded. Do you want me to reformulate this, or do we just go with the current description? Patrick