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 18:18:11 +0900 From: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com> To: Don Mullis <dwm@...r.net> Cc: akpm <akpm@...l.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 -mm] fault-injection: lightweight code-coverage maximizer On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:51:30PM -0800, Don Mullis wrote: > Allow all non-unique call stacks, as judged by pushed sequence of EIPs, > to be to be ignored as failure candidates. > > 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? > Intent is to make code-coverage-maximizing test lightweight, perhaps > light enough to remain enabled during the course of the developer's > interactive testing of new code. > > Enabled by default. (/debug/fail*/stacktrace-depth > 0) This doesn't maximize code coverage. It makes fault-injector reject any failures which have same stacktrace before. So it should not be default. > +static bool fail_uniquestack(struct fault_attr *attr) > +{ > + u32 oldhash; > + u32 newhash; > + uint offset = 0; > + > + newhash = unique_stack_p(attr); > + > + for ( oldhash = newhash; oldhash != 0; offset++) { > + oldhash = atomic_xchg( > + &attr->uniquestack_hash_table[ > + (newhash+offset)%ARRAY_SIZE(attr->uniquestack_hash_table)], > + oldhash); > + if (oldhash == newhash) > + return false; > + if (offset >= ARRAY_SIZE(attr->uniquestack_hash_table)) { > + printk(KERN_NOTICE > + "FAULT_INJECTION: table overflow -- " > + "fault injection disabled\n"); > + return false; > + } > + } Updating array in this way is not safe (SMP or interrupt). - 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