Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 09:33:20AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> * jk/lsan-race-with-barrier (2024-12-30) 5 commits > ... > This graduated faster than I expected. :) Heh, it is before -rc2 and the change is only about tests, so ... > ... > So that line is doing something useful. But it may not be worth the racy > pain it's causing. So some alternatives are: > > - we drop that line by default, and then when people are investigating > a specific leak, they can override LSAN_OPTIONS themselves to get > better output (though of course knowing that you can even do is > tricky) > > - we keep that line by default, but override LSAN_OPTIONS for CI to > avoid the race. That makes all local leak-checking traces > informative by default. But CI ones may be truncated. I'm not sure > if people use the CI ones directly, or investigate further > themselves. > > - we could annotate individual scripts or even tests to disable the > option (since it's really just threaded programs). This is more > hassle, but would limit the blast radius. > > I don't love any of those, but they may be less bad than all of the > barrier trickery. And it may be that this is even something we could get > fixed in LSan upstream, and it would just be a temporary workaround. I'm > still going to pursue that. > > And finally, one other option (that I'm not sure why I didn't consider > before): can we just ignore the false positives, similar to what we did > in 370ef7e40d (test-lib: ignore uninteresting LSan output, 2023-08-28). Good point. > I think we'd have to stop doing abort_on_error for the leak checker and > just rely on the logs, but that's OK (we always check the logs these > days). > ... > A little hacky, but it lets us have our cake and eat it, too. No changes > to the code, and no bad stack traces. > > What do you think? I like the small hack. "This is ultimately LSan's racy-ness and not ours, so let's avoid changing our code to work it around when we can do the workaround somewhere else" is an attitude that I would endorse fully. Thanks.
