linux-kernel - Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ftracetest: Add a couple of ftrace test cases

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: <5425564A.4020107@hitachi.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:04:26 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@...sung.com>,
	Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ftracetest: Add a couple of ftrace test cases

(2014/09/25 1:36), Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 09/24/2014 10:30 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:22:12 -0600
>> Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> One simple approach is to have the user install the required tools
>>> for the test. Indicate what is needed and fail the test with
>>> appropriate message with xskip. This is what I have in mind for
>>> tests that can't be run because of a missing config. The same can
>>> be extended to external tools that the test depends on.
>>
>> Should I hold off adding my tests until we have all this in place. Or
>> should I just push my tests with simply passing if the config isn't
>> supported for now and add it later?
>>
>> I wont add any of the tests that require other tools besides echo, grep
>> and cat.

They are supported by busybox :)

> Please go ahead and get them in. The framework might have to wait
> until 3.19, so there is no need to have it gate test development.
> We can evolve them as we go. If tests require special, it means that
> they aren't suitable for certain envs such as qemu boot with busybox.
> There is a plan to add test targets to cover such cases.

Agreed, anyway, in some env those tools(commands) may not supported
by busybox because of the memory size etc. In that case, we can just
mark the test unsupported or xfail.

Thank you,

> I would recommend at least printing a message saying what you are
> missing if you find something missing.
> 
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
> 
> 


-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com


--
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/