[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200305011123.GL29971@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 17:11:23 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHSET] sanitized pathwalk machinery (v3)
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 09:00:31PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 09:59:46PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>
> > > FWIW, I'm putting together some litmus tests for pathwalk semantics -
> > > one of the things I'd like to discuss at LSF; quite a few codepaths
> > > are simply not touched by anything in xfstests.
> >
> > I won't be at LSF unfortunately, but this is something I would be very
> > interested in helping with -- one of the things I've noticed is the lack
> > of a test-suite for some of the more generic VFS bits (such as namei).
>
> BTW, has anyone tried to run tests with oprofile and see how much of the
> core kernel gets exercised? That looks like an obvious thing to try -
> at least the places outside of spin_lock_irq() ought to get lit after
> a while...
>
> Have any CI folks tried doing that, or am I missing some obvious reason
> why that is not feasible?
I don't know about oprofile, but LTP got their gcov patches merged
into 2.6.31:
http://ltp.sourceforge.net/coverage/gcov.php
Powered by blists - more mailing lists