From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Richard Palethorpe <richard.palethorpe@suse.com>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
kernelci@groups.io, shuah <shuah@kernel.org>,
ltp@lists.linux.it, George Kennedy <george.kennedy@oracle.com>,
Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.com>,
"open list : KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
automated-testing@yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] LTP Wrapper for Syzkaller reproducers
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:54:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191009145416.GA5014@rei.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+b0tTAQ0r_2gCVjjRh--Xwv=aLzh6MY=ciXMMrK+cAQsA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi!
> I don't have prior experience with LTP tests, but from reading the
> code it looks reasonable to me.
>
> I assume that .needs_tmpdir = 1 ensures that each test runs in its own
> new temp dir, which is later removed.
Indeed, it's removed recursively by the test library.
> I've stared for a while at "rem / exec_time_start < 0.98" trying to
> understand what is that tst_timeout_remaining() returns that we want
> to kill that process when the ratio is < 0.98... provided that we
> convert 1 to float but not the other var. I failed to come up with the
> answer. I have potential answers for "<0.02" and ">0.98". But I assume
> you know what you are doing :)
The tst_timeout_remaining() returns remaining test timeout, so at test
start it returns something close to 300 seconds, since that is a default
for a LTP tests, so this would probably kill a process quite fast, if
I'm reading right, after a bit more than five seconds. I guess that this
is something intended for a quick v1 hack rather than for later use.
> Re tst_res(TINFO, "Timeout; killing reproducer"). Not sure how much it
> pollutes output on 3000 tests. If it is, it can make sense to remove
> it. Lots of tests run forever, killing it is not something of
> particular interest generally.
I guess so.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [RFC PATCH] LTP Wrapper for Syzkaller reproducers
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:54:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191009145416.GA5014@rei.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+b0tTAQ0r_2gCVjjRh--Xwv=aLzh6MY=ciXMMrK+cAQsA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi!
> I don't have prior experience with LTP tests, but from reading the
> code it looks reasonable to me.
>
> I assume that .needs_tmpdir = 1 ensures that each test runs in its own
> new temp dir, which is later removed.
Indeed, it's removed recursively by the test library.
> I've stared for a while at "rem / exec_time_start < 0.98" trying to
> understand what is that tst_timeout_remaining() returns that we want
> to kill that process when the ratio is < 0.98... provided that we
> convert 1 to float but not the other var. I failed to come up with the
> answer. I have potential answers for "<0.02" and ">0.98". But I assume
> you know what you are doing :)
The tst_timeout_remaining() returns remaining test timeout, so at test
start it returns something close to 300 seconds, since that is a default
for a LTP tests, so this would probably kill a process quite fast, if
I'm reading right, after a bit more than five seconds. I guess that this
is something intended for a quick v1 hack rather than for later use.
> Re tst_res(TINFO, "Timeout; killing reproducer"). Not sure how much it
> pollutes output on 3000 tests. If it is, it can make sense to remove
> it. Lots of tests run forever, killing it is not something of
> particular interest generally.
I guess so.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-09 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-09 14:24 [RFC PATCH] LTP Wrapper for Syzkaller reproducers Richard Palethorpe
2019-10-09 14:24 ` [LTP] " Richard Palethorpe
2019-10-09 14:40 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-10-09 14:40 ` [LTP] " Dmitry Vyukov
2019-10-09 14:54 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2019-10-09 14:54 ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-10-09 17:20 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-10-09 17:20 ` [LTP] " Dmitry Vyukov
2019-10-09 18:04 ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-10-09 18:04 ` [LTP] " Cyril Hrubis
2019-10-09 18:21 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-10-09 18:21 ` [LTP] " Dmitry Vyukov
2019-10-10 9:30 ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-10-10 9:30 ` [LTP] " Cyril Hrubis
2019-10-10 9:50 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-10-10 9:50 ` [LTP] " Dmitry Vyukov
2019-10-10 13:22 ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-10-10 13:22 ` [LTP] " Cyril Hrubis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191009145416.GA5014@rei.lan \
--to=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=automated-testing@yoctoproject.org \
--cc=chrubis@suse.com \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=george.kennedy@oracle.com \
--cc=kernelci@groups.io \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=richard.palethorpe@suse.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.