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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 29 Mar 2015 18:47:45 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Hajime Tazaki <tazaki@....wide.ad.jp>
CC:	pooka@....fi, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de,
	corbet@....net, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org,
	rientjes@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] an introduction of library operating system
 for Linux (LibOS)

Am 29.03.2015 um 17:36 schrieb Hajime Tazaki:
> 
> 
> At Sat, 28 Mar 2015 22:17:40 +0100,
> Richard Weinberger wrote:
> 
>>> Continuous testing is paramount.  Running the kernel as
>>> a lib provides an unparalleled method for testing most of
>>> the kernel.  It will improve testing capabilities
>>> dramatically,
>>> and on the flipside it will keep the libos working.
>>> Everyone wins.
>>
>> If it can be done cheap, yes. But our in-kernel tests improved over the years a lot.
>> Now have lockdep, KASan, kmemleak, etc. to find *real-world* issues and the need for stubbed testing
>> decreases.
> 
> let me take the same example I raised.
> 
> - Patchwork [net-next] xfrm6: Fix a offset value for network header in _decode_session6
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/436351/
> 
> without stubbed testing (I didn't know this term btw), we
> can't decrease untested paths of the code.
> 
> the above bug is for Mobile IPv6, which not so many people
> are using though, but it's certainly a regression for a
> person.
> 
> testing framework with libos is based on a network
> simulator, with a slight decreased realism (but it can
> detect a real bug !), but provides a lightweight multi-node
> testing framework with a single test scenario script to
> control over the nodes.
> 
> it doesn't require heavyweight machines nor complex cabling
> for a bunch of tests.
> 
> even a framework is not cheap, I would use such a testing
> tool IF we can improve the code. plus (as you may know), it
> certainly reduces the maintenance effort once it's automated.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that this kind of testing is good.
But as I said before we have to keep the maintenance burden in mind.

Let's wait a bit what Arnd says. He is the Linux arch maintainer.

Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists