[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAC5umyi0Yq7spQW=nQEEnkZ1Ar7VBwaZPPdstThnyJzg2tSKUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 18:54:18 +0900
From: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
syzkaller@...glegroups.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fault-inject: support systematic fault injection
2017-03-25 5:08 GMT+09:00 Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>:
> Add /sys/kernel/debug/fail_once file that allows failing 0-th, 1-st, 2-nd
> and so on calls systematically. Excerpt from the added documentation:
>
> ===
> Write to this file of integer N makes N-th call in the current task fail
> (N is 0-based). Read from this file returns a single char 'Y' or 'N'
> that says if the fault setup with a previous write to this file was
> injected or not, and disables the fault if it wasn't yet injected.
> Note that this file enables all types of faults (slab, futex, etc).
> This setting takes precedence over all other generic settings like
> probability, interval, times, etc. But per-capability settings
> (e.g. fail_futex/ignore-private) take precedence over it.
> This feature is intended for systematic testing of faults in a single
> system call. See an example below.
> ===
The "/sys/kernel/debug/fail_once" contains per-task data.
Should we introduce new per-task file like "/proc/<pid>/fail-nth"
instead of adding a single global debugfs file?
> Why adding new setting:
> 1. Existing settings are global rather than per-task.
> So parallel testing is not possible.
> 2. attr->interval is close but it depends on attr->count
> which is non reset to 0, so interval does not work as expected.
> 3. Trying to model this with existing settings requires manipulations
> of all of probability, interval, times, space, task-filter and
> unexposed count and per-task make-it-fail files.
> 4. Existing settings are per-failure-type, and the set of failure
> types is potentially expanding.
> 5. make-it-fail can't be changed by unprivileged user and aggressive
> stress testing better be done from an unprivileged user.
> Similarly, this would require opening the debugfs files to the
> unprivileged user, as he would need to reopen at least times file
> (not possible to pre-open before dropping privs).
>
> The proposed interface solves all of the above (see the example).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists