linux-kernel - hugetlbfs testing coverage (was: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer free_huge

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 18 Dec 2019 13:18:37 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com, Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
Subject: hugetlbfs testing coverage (was: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: defer
 free_huge_page() to a workqueue)

On Tue 17-12-19 10:05:06, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Cc: Eric
> 
> On 12/17/19 1:00 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 16-12-19 13:44:53, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 12/16/19 10:38 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>> Can you extract guts of the testcase and integrate them into hugetlb
> >>>> test suite?
> >>
> >> BTW, what hugetlb test suite are you talking about?
> > 
> > I was using tests from libhugetlbfs package in the past. There are few
> > tests in LTP project but the libhugetlbfs coverage used to cover the
> > largest part of the functionality.
> > 
> > Is there any newer home for the package than [1], Mike? Btw. would it
> > mak sense to migrate those tests to a more common place, LTP or kernel
> > selftests?
> 
> That is the latest home/release for libhugetlbfs.
> 
> The libhugetlbfs test suite is somewhat strange in that I suspect it started
> as testing for libhugetlbfs itself.  When it was written, the thought may have
> been that people would use libhugetlfs as the primary interface to hugetlb
> pages.  That is not the case today.  Over time, hugetlbfs tests not associated
> with libhugetlbfs were added.
> 
> If we want to migrate libhugetlbfs tests, then I think we would only want to
> migrate the non-libhugetlbfs test cases.  Although, the libhugetlbfs specific
> tests are useful as they 'could' point out regressions.

Yeah, I can second that. I remember using the suite and it pointed to
real issues when I was touching the area in the past. So if we can get
as many tests to be independent on the library and integrate it to some
existing testing project - be it kernel selftest or LTP - then it would
be really great and I assume the testing coverage of the hugetlb
functionality would increase dramatically.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs