From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:54:16 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] LTP Wrapper for Syzkaller reproducers Message-ID: <20191009145416.GA5014@rei.lan> References: <20191009142446.6997-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline List-ID: To: Dmitry Vyukov Cc: Richard Palethorpe , syzkaller , kernelci@groups.io, shuah , ltp@lists.linux.it, George Kennedy , Cyril Hrubis , "open list : KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , automated-testing@yoctoproject.org 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