RFC: Sanitizer: Make SuppressionContext tool-specific

[Alexander Potapenko]

Will it be possible to combine LSan and ASan suppressions in a single file?
(I'm not quite sure we want this, though)
The idea sounds good to me in general.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote:
> +glider
> sounds good to me
> but probably not super top priority
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> TL;DR Let's make each sanitizer has its own suppression context.
>>
>> So now there are four  sanitizers that support suppressions: TSan, LSan,
>> UBSan, ASan; and 12 types of suppressions (TSan has 7, LSan and UBSan has 1,
>> ASan has 3, none are shared).
>>
>> The only way to use suppressions is via SuppressionContext singleton from
>> sanitizer_common library. I propose to make SuppressionContext a regular
>> class and let each sanitizer use its own, specialized version of it.
>> "suppressions" runtime flag will be removed from CommonFlags, and instead
>> added to each of: TsanFlags, UbsanFlags, AsanFlags, LsanFlags.
>>
>> This will allow us to:
>> 1) specify different suppression files for each sanitizer, which is useful
>> if they are combined
>> $ ASAN_OPTIONS=suppressions=asan_supp.txt
>> LSAN_OPTIONS=suppressions=lsan_supp.txt
>>
>> 2) properly diagnose unsupported suppressions: e.g. if one will write
>> thread:foo.cc
>> and pass this suppression file to UBSan
>>
>> 3) get rid of hardcoding all possible sanitizer-specific suppressions in
>> sanitizer_common.
>>
>> I'm fine with making this change, do you agree that we should do it? To me
>> this seems like a no-brainer, but let me know if you think differently.
>>
>> --
>> Alexey Samsonov
>> vonosmas at gmail.com



-- 
Alexander Potapenko
Software Engineer
Google Moscow