From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C40C47404 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:54:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD00218AC for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:54:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729865AbfJIOyT (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:54:19 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:43450 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729491AbfJIOyT (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:54:19 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4390AD6D; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:54:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:54:16 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis 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 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kselftest-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.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