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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:08:33 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> To: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>, Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-kselftest/test v2] ext4: add kunit test for decoding extended timestamps On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 05:26:29PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > > I don't really buy the argument that unit tests should be deterministic > Possibly, but I would opt for having the ability to feed test data. I strongly believe that unit tests should be deterministic. Non-deterministic tests are essentially fuzz tests. And fuzz tests should be different from unit tests. We want unit tests to run quickly. Fuzz tests need to be run for a large number of passes (perhaps hours) in order to be sure that we've hit any possible bad cases. We want to be able to easily bisect fuzz tests --- preferably, automatically. And any kind of flakey test is hell to bisect. It's bad enough when a test is flakey because of the underlying code. But when a test is flakey because the test inputs are non-deterministic, it's even worse. - Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists