[COMMITTED 2.34 2/2] malloc: Improve aligned_alloc and calloc test coverage.

[Adhemerval Zanella Netto]

On 21/05/24 10:00, Miguel Martín via Libc-stable wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-05-21 at 12:42 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Miguel Martin via Libc-stable:
> 
>>> From: Joe Simmons-Talbott <josimmon@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Add a DSO (malloc/tst-aligned_alloc-lib.so) that can be used during
>>> testing to interpose malloc with a call that randomly uses either
>>> aligned_alloc, __libc_malloc, or __libc_calloc in the place of
>>> malloc.
>>> Use LD_PRELOAD with the DSO to mirror malloc/tst-malloc.c testing
>>> as an
>>> example in malloc/tst-malloc-random.c.  Add malloc/tst-aligned-
>>> alloc-random.c
>>> as another example that does a number of malloc calls with randomly
>>> sized,
>>> but limited to 0xffff, requests.
>>>
>>> The intention is to be able to utilize existing malloc testing to
>>> ensure
>>> that similar allocation APIs are also exposed to the same rigors.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
>>> (cherry picked from commit
>>> 3395157ff2b0657d70c36169156f67440205c8bf)
> 
>> In general, we don't backport such mere test additions to upstream
>> release branches, especially if they do not relate to known previous
>> regressions or might cover potential regressions in changes we
>> backport
>> later.  One reason is that we like to maintain monoticity in the
>> sense
>> that if a commit has been backported to 2.X, we also want it
>> backported
>> to 2.X+1 (if it wasn't already committed during 2.X+1 development). 
>> For
>> earlier branches such as 2.34, that requires fixing a lot of other
>> branches, and the branch count is steadily growing over time.  This
>> effort is better spent elsewhere.
> 
>> Our downstream procedures do not require that the branch is
>> backported
>> to the upstream base branch.
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Florian
> 
> 
> Ok, it make sense.
> 
> Then, we only need to backport d141717 to glibc/2.39/master so
> all the commits are in upstream 2.39 before backporting them downstream
> to 2.34, right?
> 

Also, do you plan to backport it to all other affected releases branches?
Because it does not make much sense to have it only for 2.34, 2.39, and
master.