This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFD] Efficient unit test and fuzz tools for kernel/libc porting
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" <bamvor dot zhangjian at huawei dot com>
- Cc: <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, <linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, <trinity at vger dot kernel dot org>, <syzkaller at googlegroups dot com>, <aponomarenko at rosalab dot ru>, Jess Hertz <jesse.hertz@nccgroup.trust>, Tim Newsham <tim.newsham@nccgroup.trust>, <arnd at arndb dot dea>, <catalin dot marinas at arm dot com>, <broonie at kernel dot org>, <maxim dot kuvyrkov at linaro dot org>, <ynorov at caviumnetworks dot com>, <pinskia at gmail dot com>, <schwab at suse dot de>, <agraf at suse dot de>, <marcus dot shawcroft at arm dot com>, <dingtianhong at huawei dot com>, <guohanjun at huawei dot com>, <cuibixuan at huawei dot com>, <lijinyue at huawei dot com>, <lizefan at huawei dot com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:47:35 +0000
- Subject: Re: [RFD] Efficient unit test and fuzz tools for kernel/libc porting
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <577CB5B7.7040204@huawei.com>
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote:
> correct or not. After learn and compare some fuzz tools, I feel that there is
> no such fuzz tools could help me. So, I wrote a new fuzz tools base on the
> trinity and it found several wrapper issues in glibc. I will first explain the
> different with existing fuzz tools and paste my propsosal in the end.
I'm not at all clear on whether any of the people working on AArch64 ILP32
glibc have run the glibc testsuite and investigated the results in detail
(the patch submissions have failed to include glibc testsuite results and
have included bugs that would have been detected by the glibc testsuite).
But, if you've found bugs in a new glibc port that were not detected by
the existing testsuite, then tests for those bugs should be contributed to
glibc (even if no existing port has those bugs, improving the test
coverage is still a good idea).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com