linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: New x86 breakpoints selftest

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 8 Dec 2011 01:11:41 +0100
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: New x86 breakpoints selftest

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:32:23PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri,  2 Dec 2011 16:41:15 +0100
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > Bring a first selftest in the relevant directory.
> 
> That all looks nice and simple, thanks.  Unless I get suitably shouted
> at I think I'll send all this Linuswards.  Then I can hassle people to
> add their little test snippets as they add userspace-visible features.
> 
> I don't think we'd ever want to turn this into some huge kernel
> verification suite.  My thinking here is that I frequently see that
> people have written little test cases for their new feature, but those
> test cases just die after the feature is merged.  It would be better to
> maintain and grow these tests as the relevant features are augmented or
> bugfixed.

Exactly. And I also think this is no good place for background long running
stress-tests but rather for correctness tests (Unless we find situations
where short stress-tests are enough to trigger correctness problems).
That's really targeted to spot ABI breakages or alike.

My selftest for the cgroup task counter subsystem is also a good candidate for
that (if that subsystem ever get merged but that's a separate debate ;)

> 
> All these features are Linux-specific.  Standard interface features (eg
> POSIX) are and should be tested via other externally-maintained test
> suites.
> 
> If the whole idea ends up not working out, we can just delete it all.

Agreed, let the selftest subsystem selftest itself for a while and we'll figure
out.

Thanks.
--
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/