| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:14:36 -0800 From: Don Mullis <dwm@...r.net> To: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com> Cc: akpm <akpm@...l.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 -mm] fault-injection: lightweight code-coverage maximizer On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 18:18 +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:51:30PM -0800, Don Mullis wrote: > > Upon keying in > > echo 1 >probability > > echo 3 >verbose > > echo -1 >times > > a few dozen stacks are printk'ed, then system responsiveness > > recovers to normal. Similarly, starting a non-trivial program > > will print a few stacks before responsiveness recovers. > > What kind of test did you do? First, waiting a few seconds for the standard FC-6 daemons to wake up. Then, Xemacs and Firefox. Not tested on SMP. > This doesn't maximize code coverage. It makes fault-injector reject > any failures which have same stacktrace before. Since the volume of (repeated) dumps is greatly reduced, interval/probability can be set more aggressively without crippling interaction. This increases the number of error recovery paths covered per unit of wall clock time. > Updating array in this way is not safe (SMP or interrupt). You're right. Patch forthcoming. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists