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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 CE5B5C10F14 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A517F21738 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727334AbfDWKW6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Apr 2019 06:22:58 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:53430 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726150AbfDWKW6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Apr 2019 06:22:58 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5129374; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakrids.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D5643F557; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 03:22:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:22:50 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Dhaval Giani Cc: Sasha Levin , shuah , Kevin Hilman , Tim Bird , LKML , Steven Rostedt , "Carpenter,Dan" , willy@infradead.org, gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk, Dmitry Vyukov , knut.omang@oracle.com, Nick Desaulniers Subject: Re: Linux Testing Microconference at LPC Message-ID: <20190423102250.GA56999@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1+11 (2f07cb52) (2018-12-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:37:51AM -0700, Dhaval Giani wrote: > Hi Folks, > > This is a call for participation for the Linux Testing microconference > at LPC this year. > > For those who were at LPC last year, as the closing panel mentioned, > testing is probably the next big push needed to improve quality. From > getting more selftests in, to regression testing to ensure we don't > break realtime as more of PREEMPT_RT comes in, to more stable distros, > we need more testing around the kernel. > > We have talked about different efforts around testing, such as fuzzing > (using syzkaller and trinity), automating fuzzing with syzbot, 0day > testing, test frameworks such as ktests, smatch to find bugs in the > past. We want to push this discussion further this year and are > interested in hearing from you what you want to talk about, and where > kernel testing needs to go next. I'd be interested to discuss what we could do with annotations and compiler instrumentation to make the kernel more amenable to static and dynamic analysis (and to some extent, documenting implicit requirements). One idea that I'd like to explore in the context of RT is to annotate function signatures with their required IRQ/preempt context, such that we could dynamically check whether those requirements were violated (even if it didn't happen to cause a problem at that point in time), and static analysis would be able to find some obviously broken usage. I had some rough ideas of how to do the dynamic part atop/within ftrace. Maybe there are similar problems elsewhere. I know that some clang folk were interested in similar stuff. IIRC Nick Desaulniers was interested in whether clang's thread safety analysis tooling could be applied to the kernel (e.g. based on lockdep annotations). Thanks, Mark.