On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 02:40:34PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > While working on another topic that cleared up some leaks, I wanted to > see if any new tests became leak-free, so I ran: > > $ make SANITIZE=leak > $ make GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check GIT_TEST_OPTS=-i test Is that exactly what you ran? Because I'd expect the second "make" invocation to rebuild Git _without_ SANITIZE=leak enabled in that case. (Though I would have then expected most of the scripts to complain loudly about the mismatch; did you "cd t" in between the two?). > t/t3321-notes-stripspace.sh | 1 + > t/t5571-pre-push-hook.sh | 1 + > t/t5583-push-branches.sh | 1 + > t/t7516-commit-races.sh | 2 ++ > 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+) If I run a single: make SANITIZE=leak GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check GIT_TEST_OPTS=-i test on v2.42.0, I get many hits. All of the ones you mentioned, plus: t7408 t5407 t7008 t5811 t3407 t6001 t4058 t2016 If I run a few by hand, I _do_ see leaks in them, but the exit codes are hidden from the test suite (they are sub-programs of scripts, etc). I guess you also have: GIT_TEST_SANITIZE_LEAK_LOG=true set, which should find those (and which you mention in your first commit). Turning that on eliminates some of them, but I'm left with: t5614 t5317 t5503 not in your list. Which is super weird, because t5614 is marked with TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK. Hrm. And if I run it again, I get a _different_ set (t5614 again, along with your 4, but also t5303, t7701, and t4050). I wonder if we have a race in the leak-log code or something (I'm running under prove with -j32, naturally). > This series marks all leak-free tests as such, meaning that the above > "make test" invocation will pass after this series. The bulk of the > tests which are marked here in the first patch were always > leak-free[^1]. The remaining two patches address a couple of special > cases of tests which are also leak-free. Hmm. If I check t5571, for example, by bisecting on: make SANITIZE=leak && (cd t && ./t5571-pre-push-hook.sh -v -i) it shows that it was fixed by 861c56f6f9 (branch: fix a leak in setup_tracking, 2023-06-11), which make sense. There are a bunch of leak fixes in the same series, which makes me wonder if they're responsible for most of these. If the leaks are gone, I am happy that we are marking them. But it is weird to me that we are getting different results. -Peff
