linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] selftests/ftrace: Some improvements of ftracetest

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 Jun 2017 17:39:46 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] selftests/ftrace: Some improvements of ftracetest

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:33:39 -0600
Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> wrote:


> > Note, when a bug is found, we do add the reproducer to ftracetest. So
> > depending on whether you have the latest stable, or the stable has a
> > fix, ftracetest can cause the machine to crash on older releases.  
> 
> Yeah - that could be problem, I would worry more if ftracetest can be run
> as a non-root user. As ftracetest is intrusive in nature just like the timer
> tests, we could say user needs to be aware.
> 
> If the outcome isn't desirable, we could run ftracetest conditionally as
> a last resort. I think it is important for it to be run as part of kselftest
> suite run.

Well, I wouldn't worry too much. It shouldn't do any damage. And
anything that can trigger a bug in previous kernels should be
backported as well to the stable releases. Everyone runs the latest
stable kernels, right?

Also, did you see my reply about having the right config? You have
HIST_TRIGGERS undefined but yet the histogram trigger tests all pass in
your report.

One more thing, is this 100% reproducible. That is, does it always fail?

-- Steve