[LTP] [doc, runtest] [was: Re: [PATCH] cve: add CVE-2025-38236 test]

[Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>]

Hi Cyril, all,

> Hi!
> > >  testcases/cve/.gitignore       |   1 +
> > >  testcases/cve/cve-2025-38236.c | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> > File not added into runtest/cve.

> > Maybe we need to enhance 'make check' to check this via 'git grep'.

> > checkpatch.pl looks into resulted file, IMHO we have no tool to check the patch
> > itself. But maybe enhance b4 (kind of plugin) to check this :).

> Or we can genereate the cve runtest file. It should be possible to build
> it from the metadata during the build.

This problem happen on all runtest files, fixing just one does not fix the
problem.

Sure, it'd be possible to generate runtest/cve from metadata. Do we really want
to implement it? (I can create a ticket). I guess we would use C and ujson to
not require json-c or python3 for building LTP.

I would be more interested to have section "CVE reproducers" in Statistics page [1].
While the same tool could be used to do both goals, when only doc page
implemented, it could be easily done in python3 (doc/conf.py already parses
ltp.json).

When we are at Statistics page, also generating list of reproducers (based on
kernel fixes) would be also nice. Because this was implemented in the previous
asciidoctor implementation. How about having these lists Statistics, where are
other tables already (and linking each test to "Test Catalog")?

Also I find "Statistics" name confusing. It says nothing about the content. I
wonder if people curiously click on the page or just ignore the page (if they
don't like math :)). Maybe "Kernel coverage" or something like that would be
more informative.

Kind regards,
Petr

[1] https://linux-test-project.readthedocs.io/en/latest/users/stats.html

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp