Re: [RFC 00/19] Kernel API Specification Framework

[Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>]

Hi!
> > You may wonder if such kind of tests are useful at all, since quite a
> > few of these errors are checked for and generated from a common
> > functions. There are at least two cases I can think of. First of all it
> > makes sure that errors are stable when particular function/subsystem is
> > rewritten. And it can also make sure that errors are consistent across
> > different implementation of the same functionality e.g. filesystems. I
> > remember that some of the less used FUSE filesystems returned puzzling
> > errors in certain corner cases.
> 
> I am not following how this is related to the validation part of the
> patch series. Can you elaborate?

This part is me trying to explain that generated conformance tests would
be useful for development as well.

> Generation of such conformance tests would need info about parameter
> types and their semantic meaning, not the validation part.
> The conformance tests should test that actual syscall checking of
> arguments, not the validation added by this framework.

Exactly.

I do not think that it makes sense to encode the argument ranges and
functions to generate a valid syscall parameters into the kernel. Rather
than that the information should encoded in the extended types, if we do
that well enough we can generate combination of different valid and
invalid parameters for the tests based on that.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz