linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH ftrace/for-next ] tracing/kprobes: Replace startup test with selftest script

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:02:29 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@...sung.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH ftrace/for-next ] tracing/kprobes: Replace startup
 test with selftest script

(2014/10/08 11:20), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:59:49 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> wrote:
>  
>>> Both of these have valid reasons staying in the kernel and I don't see
>>> either as dead weight. Is there a maintenance issue with keeping it in
>>> the kernel? There doesn't seem to be much done to it. It seems
>>> untouched for over a year, and that was to add support for multiple
>>> buffers.
>>
>> Keeping it has no issue. But it's much easier to expand the test
>> in userspace than the kernel code. I'll add more feature tests in
>> kselftest, but not in this code. This means that this startup
>> test code will get behind.
> 
> And that's exactly what I expect you to do. I have lots of tests to
> test ftrace, but what gets tested at kernel startup is just a bare
> minimum, and that's all it needs to be. I don't expect you to extend
> the start up self tests. That should be only done for the scripts. But
> we have this start up test and I don't see a reason to get rid of it.
> If anything, it gives me warm fuzzies in my stomach when I see it
> pass :-)
> 
> The start up tests in the kernel should really just be the basic of the
> basic tests, that give a small sanity check that a change didn't
> totally screw things up.
> 
> Can you send a new patch that doesn't remove the start up test?

OK, I'll send it asap :)

Thank you,


-- 
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/