linux-kernel - Re: [RFD] Efficient unit test and fuzz tools for kernel/libc porting

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:39:11 +0800
From:	"Zhangjian (Bamvor)" <bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com>
To:	Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	<libc-alpha@...rceware.org>, <trinity@...r.kernel.org>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
	<aponomarenko@...alab.ru>, Jess Hertz <jesse.hertz@...group.trust>,
	"Tim Newsham" <tim.newsham@...group.trust>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	"Maxim Kuvyrkov" <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>,
	Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Andrew Pinski <pinskia@...il.com>,
	Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>,
	"Alexander Graf" <agraf@...e.de>, <marcus.shawcroft@....com>,
	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>, <cuibixuan@...wei.com>,
	<lijinyue@...wei.com>, Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Efficient unit test and fuzz tools for kernel/libc porting

Hi, Joseph

On 2016/7/20 23:47, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote:
>
>> correct or not. After learn and compare some fuzz tools, I feel that there is
>> no such fuzz tools could help me. So, I wrote a new fuzz tools base on the
>> trinity and it found several wrapper issues in glibc. I will first explain the
>> different with existing fuzz tools and paste my propsosal in the end.
>
> I'm not at all clear on whether any of the people working on AArch64 ILP32
> glibc have run the glibc testsuite and investigated the results in detail
> (the patch submissions have failed to include glibc testsuite results and
>  have included bugs that would have been detected by the glibc testsuite).
I run test glibc testsuite in previous glibc version with v6 kernel patch
backport to kernel-4.1, without regression. I usually run glibc testsuite
after ltp test result looks good. So, maybe it hard to find a issue by
glibc testsuite in this case.
> But, if you've found bugs in a new glibc port that were not detected by
> the existing testsuite, then tests for those bugs should be contributed to
> glibc (even if no existing port has those bugs, improving the test
> coverage is still a good idea).
It is good idea. I will review the fixed issues(such as wrong context in
signal, wrong parameter in off_t/stat relative syscalls) and check if it is
suitable to add it to glibc testsuite. (Actually, I do not know which
test suite (ltp or glibc) I should improve for a specific issue).
I hope our tools could help on improving the coverage of syscall relative
code at least.

Thanks.

Bamvor