linux-kernel - [RFC] BPF fault/jitter-injection framework

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <5l4btekupkqatpxkfaolqhc5kw5wra3xvd7dosalem6zuo5vp5@vwfd7idoqdzv>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 13:10:18 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC] BPF fault/jitter-injection framework

Greetings,

I've been thinking what if we had a BPF jitter/fault injection framework
for more fine-grained and configurable kernel testing.  Current fault
injection doesn't support function arguments analysis, with BPF we
can have something like

    // of course bpf_schedule_timeout() doesn't exist yet
    call bpf_schedule_timeout(120) in blk_execute_rq(rq) if
    rq->q->disk->major == 8 && rq->q->disk->first_minor == 0

So that would introduce blk request execution timeouts/jitters for a
particular gendisk only.  And so on.

Has this been discussed before?  Does this approach even make sense
or is there a better (another) way to do this?