[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fea03f73-89d1-93f6-0d72-f5dff388098f@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 13:38:31 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add kernel config option for fuzz testing.
Can we resume this topic?
On 2020/03/26 20:10, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> CONFIG_KERNEL_BUILT_FOR_FUZZ_TESTING option remains there in order to
> avoid needlessly prompting choices to users who do not intend to build
> for fuzz testing.
>
Is CONFIG_TWIST_KERNEL_BEHAVIOR or CONFIG_TWEAK_KERNEL_BEHAVIOR
better-named than CONFIG_KERNEL_BUILT_FOR_FUZZ_TESTING, for there
might be small modifications which would be beneficial to things
other than fuzz testing (e.g. adding some more information when
dumping backtrace, reporting locks held by TASK_RUNNING threads) ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists