linux-kernel - Re: the Linux kernel, testsuites, and maybe *you*

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]

Message-ID: <46DA2133.5000809@tmr.com>
Date:	Sat, 01 Sep 2007 22:34:27 -0400
From:	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: the Linux kernel, testsuites, and maybe *you*

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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.
>
If you want to test that stuff and run it on the current code in the 
kernel, how about a kernel module? You could "modprobe sanitytest" or 
something and report to syslog at module load time. And maybe have a 
parameter which does something drastic if something core is so hosed 
that filesystem damage is likely. Or just optional init code run by a 
kernel option, perhaps sanity testing after boot is not a great idea.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot
-
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/