| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0708311422u309ff09cs24dfe64ff535a982@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:22:19 -0400 From: "Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@...il.com> To: "Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: the Linux kernel, testsuites, and maybe *you* is there any sort of standard for testing and integration into mainline ? in the Blackfin world, we've been developing little external kernel modules and adding them to our own testsuite, but often times these things are not Blackfin specific. case in point, we're integrating a string testsuite to make sure all of the fun str* and mem* functions are sane and operate as they expected, but rather than having just Blackfin benefit here, i'd like to see this pushed upstream ... i'm fully aware of LTP (as i work on it), but i feel that serves a great purpose for exercising the API/ABI exposed to userspace either directly through the kernel or indirectly through the system libc ... it isnt a very good tool for testing kernel internals, especially as the kernel changes and evolves. is there a framework already in place i'm not aware of ? should there be ? should this all live in LTP ? i wouldnt mind an option under kernel hacking "Enable testsuites" ... as far as i can tell, the testing process is really based extensively on feedback from people, nothing really automated. -mike - 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