On 26/02/2025 21.50, Peter Maydell wrote:
(edited cc list since it's moved away from a discussion of this
particular patch and on to a testing/ci coverage issue)
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 19:03, Pierrick Bouvier
<pierrick.bouv...@linaro.org> wrote:
On 2/26/25 03:50, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 20:57, Pierrick Bouvier
<pierrick.bouv...@linaro.org> wrote:
On 2/25/25 05:41, Peter Maydell wrote:
(Looking more closely at the cold_reset_values handling
in npcm_gcr.c, that looks not quite right in a different
way; I'll send a reply to that patch email about that.)
It may be a hole in our CI right now.
Would that be interesting for CI to run all tests (check-functional +
check w/o functional) with both ubsan and asan?
We do have at least some ubsan tests in our CI right now
(eg the "clang-system" job). The problem with ubsan coverage
is the usual one that we already have too much CI going on,
and it takes forever and we don't have that much headroom
for adding more jobs.
...
Would that hurt so much to have one configuration enabled with ubsan and
asan, which catches *real* bugs, and potential security issues?
Yes, it adds overhead, but it should not be x10. Around x2 to x3.
You'd need to have a duplicate of all of the above
functional-system-* test jobs if you wanted
to test all the guest architectures, I think. So it's
30 mins build * six configs plus 60 mins total for testing.
Or we could convert (some of?) the existing jobs to use the
sanitisers if we needed to economise on CI time.
I agree with Peter that having additional build jobs is currently rather a
no-go ... but maybe we could enable ubsan and/or asan in some (more) of the
existing pipelines?
Thomas
