linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/19] Add timekeeping tests to kernel selftest

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: <54F49C17.8080804@osg.samsung.com>
Date:	Mon, 02 Mar 2015 10:21:27 -0700
From:	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/19] Add timekeeping tests to kernel selftest

On 03/02/2015 10:14 AM, John Stultz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> wrote:
>> On 02/25/2015 03:32 PM, John Stultz wrote:
>>> I've hosted my timekeeping tests on github for the last few years:
>>>       https://github.com/johnstultz-work/timetests
>>>
>>> but I suspect not too many folks have actually used them.
>>>
>>> I've been meaning to get them reworked and submitted into the
>>> selftest infrastructure, but haven't had much time until
>>> recently. So I wanted to send this out and get any feedback
>>> to see if they might be able to get into shape for the 4.1
>>> merge window.
>>>
>>> I've added both the non-desctructive and destructive tests
>>> (which set the time, possibly to strange values, or tries
>>> to trigger historical issues that could crash the machine).
>>> The destructive tests are run (as root, or with proper
>>> privledge) via:
>>>       # make run_destructive_tests
>>>
>>
>> I quickly browsed through the tests. Looks good to me. One
>> comment on test run scope. Since timers now include destructive
>> tests, run_tests target should only run the non-destructive by
>> default and destructive tests.
> 
> Yes, agreed. That's why they are separated.
> 
>> I didn't see the run_destructive_tests in this set of changes
>> in the timers/Makefile.
> 
> ? See patch 10/19 for where run_destructive_tests gets introduced.

Sorry missed that one.

> 
>> Please see cpu-hotplug and memory-hotplug as examples that
>> support default and full range tests.
> 
> Would you rather the destructive tests be included in run_full_tests?

run_destructive_tests is just fine and appropriate for these tests.

> 
> Other then that, I've got a few compiler warning cleanup and a fix for
> CROSS_COMPILE, so I'll resbumit the set tomorrow or later this week.
> So let me know if there are any other changes you'd like and I'll roll
> those in.

Please use kselftest.h reporting mechanism for new tests. posix_timers.c
is updated to use it and it would make sense use it for new tests as
well.

thanks,
-- Shuah


-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@....samsung.com | (970) 217-8978
--
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/