linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: stub: Add support for SMBus block commands

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: <20140713092127.4bedfa18@endymion.delvare>
Date:	Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:21:27 +0200
From:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: stub: Add support for SMBus block commands

Hi Guenter,

On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:05:49 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Any idea how we could inject errors ? Error path testing would be quite useful.

Good idea. This should probably be done with a sysfs attribute so that
it can be turned on and off as desired. Off by default, of course. Some
other subsystems already support error injection, you could check how
they are doing it, do that we do not diverge needlessly.

Do you think there is any value in failing with different error codes,
or just -EIO is enough?

Do you think it should fail all the time when error injection is
enabled, or is there a value in having only a certain % of commands
fail?

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
--
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/