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: "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" <bamvor dot zhangjian at huawei dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: LKML <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Linux-Arch <linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, <trinity at vger dot kernel dot org>, syzkaller <syzkaller at googlegroups dot com>, <aponomarenko at rosalab dot ru>, Jess Hertz <jesse.hertz@nccgroup.trust>, "Tim Newsham" <tim.newsham@nccgroup.trust>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb dot de>, "Catalin Marinas" <catalin dot marinas at arm dot com>, Mark Brown <broonie at kernel dot org>, "Maxim Kuvyrkov" <maxim dot kuvyrkov at linaro dot org>, Yury Norov <ynorov at caviumnetworks dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, "Alexander Graf" <agraf at suse dot de>, <marcus dot shawcroft at arm dot com>, Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong at huawei dot com>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun at huawei dot com>, <cuibixuan at huawei dot com>, <lijinyue at huawei dot com>, Zefan Li <lizefan at huawei dot com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:39:11 +0800
- Subject: Re: [RFD] Efficient unit test and fuzz tools for kernel/libc porting
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <577CB5B7.7040204@huawei.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1607201544220.12251@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Hi, Joseph
On 2016/7/20 23:47, Joseph Myers wrote:
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).
I run test glibc testsuite in previous glibc version with v6 kernel patch
backport to kernel-4.1, without regression. I usually run glibc testsuite
after ltp test result looks good. So, maybe it hard to find a issue by
glibc testsuite in this case.
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).
It is good idea. I will review the fixed issues(such as wrong context in
signal, wrong parameter in off_t/stat relative syscalls) and check if it is
suitable to add it to glibc testsuite. (Actually, I do not know which
test suite (ltp or glibc) I should improve for a specific issue).
I hope our tools could help on improving the coverage of syscall relative
code at least.
Thanks.
Bamvor