linux-kernel - Re: RFC - kernel selftest result documentation (KTAP)

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

Message-ID: <202006162032.9BF6F8F4E@keescook>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:36:06 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: RFC - kernel selftest result documentation (KTAP)

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:30:45AM +0000, Bird, Tim wrote:
> Agreed.  You only need machine-parsable data if you expect the CI
> system to do something more with the data than just present it.
> What that would be, that would be common for all tests (or at least
> many test), is unclear.  Maybe there are patterns in the diagnostic
> data that could lead to higher-level analysis, or even automated
> fixes, that don't become apparent if the data is unstructured.  But
> it's hard to know until you have lots of data.  I think just getting
> the other things consistent is a good priority right now.

Yeah. I think the main place for this is performance analysis, but I
think that's a separate system entirely. TAP is really strictly yes/no,
where as performance analysis a whole other thing. The only other thing
I can think of is some kind of feature analysis, but that would be built
out of the standard yes/no output. i.e. if I create a test that checks
for specific security mitigation features (*cough*LKDTM*cough*), having
a dashboard that shows features down one axis and architectures and/or
kernel versions on other axes, then I get a pretty picture. But it's
still being built out of the yes/no info.

*shrug*

I think diagnostic should be expressly non-machine-oriented.

-- 
Kees Cook