only do linux pvalloc OutOfMemoryDeathTest on non-tcmalloc glibc builds

only do linux pvalloc OutOfMemoryDeathTest on non-tcmalloc glibc builds

We only override libc's pvalloc if when using glibc and not tcmalloc
(in base/process/memory_linux.cc), and pvalloc is not always available
on uclibc, so let's use the same ifdef in the unit test.

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=254659

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2014-02-28 09:07:24]

@vandebo, willchan: PTAL

[vandebo (ex-Chrome), 2014-02-28 16:07:47]

Would it make sense to have a PVALLOC_AVAILABLE macro and gate the test on that?

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2014-02-28 22:42:40]

LGTM

I think that vandebo's suggestion is theoretically better but I don't know if I
care enough. I'm fine, but please make sure vandebo's happy (if he still thinks
you should do this, then do it).

[vandebo (ex-Chrome), 2014-02-28 23:21:30]

On 2014/02/28 22:42:40, willchan wrote:
> LGTM
> 
> I think that vandebo's suggestion is theoretically better but I don't know if
I
> care enough. I'm fine, but please make sure vandebo's happy (if he still
thinks
> you should do this, then do it).

For most things I wouldn't care, but this tests a fundamental part of the
security model (not crashing on OOM breaks assumptions across the codebase). So
unless there's a good reason to not do what I suggested, please do it.

[willchan no longer on Chromium, 2014-02-28 23:34:55]

I buy that. OK, mostyn, please do what vandebo says :)


On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:21 PM, <vandebo@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2014/02/28 22:42:40, willchan wrote:
>
>> LGTM
>>
>
>  I think that vandebo's suggestion is theoretically better but I don't
>> know if
>>
> I
>
>> care enough. I'm fine, but please make sure vandebo's happy (if he still
>>
> thinks
>
>> you should do this, then do it).
>>
>
> For most things I wouldn't care, but this tests a fundamental part of the
> security model (not crashing on OOM breaks assumptions across the
> codebase). So
> unless there's a good reason to not do what I suggested, please do it.
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/184313002/
>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2014-03-01 10:05:23]

How does patchset 4 look?

[vandebo (ex-Chrome), 2014-03-03 16:50:18]

LGTM

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2014-03-03 16:57:26]

The CQ bit was checked by mostynb@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-03 16:58:11]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/mostynb@opera.com/184313002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-03 17:34:13]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/mostynb@opera.com/184313002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-03 18:24:12]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/mostynb@opera.com/184313002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-03 19:53:40]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/mostynb@opera.com/184313002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-03 20:17:53]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-03 20:17:54]

Retried try job too often on win_rel for step(s) base_unittests, browser_tests,
interactive_ui_tests, net_unittests, unit_tests
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_rel&nu...

[Mostyn Bramley-Moore, 2014-03-04 01:56:59]

The CQ bit was checked by mostynb@opera.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-04 01:58:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/mostynb@opera.com/184313002/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-03-04 04:54:32]

Change committed as 254659