[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f834d8e7-1027-9573-63ff-eedc49884b78@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 08:54:39 +0200
From: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it>,
Kate Carcia <kcarcia@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...el.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/16] rv: Add Runtime Verification (RV) interface
On 5/19/21 8:10 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 5/19/21 4:36 AM, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/rv/Kconfig b/kernel/trace/rv/Kconfig
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..e8e65cfc7959
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/kernel/trace/rv/Kconfig
>> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> +#
>> +menuconfig RV
>> + bool "Runtime Verification"
>> + depends on TRACING
>> + default y if DEBUG_KERNEL
>
> No need for default y. There are other reasons to use DEBUG_KERNEL
> without wanting RV turned on.
yes, you are right, I will remove it.
>> + help
>> + Enable the kernel runtime verification infrastructure. RV is a
>> + lightweight (yet rigorous) method that complements classical
>> + exhaustive verification techniques (such as model checking and
>> + theorem proving). RV works by analyzing the trace of the system's
>> + actual execution, comparing it against a formal specification of
>> + the system behavior.
>
> And in the cover/patch 00:
> tlrd:
> should be
> tl;dr:
> or at least
> tldr:
> :)
Ack!
Thanks!
-- Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists