From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754984AbcGTPrp (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:47:45 -0400 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:43104 "EHLO relay1.mentorg.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753131AbcGTPro (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:47:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:47:35 +0000 From: Joseph Myers X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk To: "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" CC: , , , , , , Jess Hertz , Tim Newsham , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [RFD] Efficient unit test and fuzz tools for kernel/libc porting In-Reply-To: <577CB5B7.7040204@huawei.com> Message-ID: References: <577CB5B7.7040204@huawei.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Zhangjian (Bamvor) wrote: > correct or not. After learn and compare some fuzz tools, I feel that there is > no such fuzz tools could help me. So, I wrote a new fuzz tools base on the > trinity and it found several wrapper issues in glibc. I will first explain the > different with existing fuzz tools and paste my propsosal in the end. I'm not at all clear on whether any of the people working on AArch64 ILP32 glibc have run the glibc testsuite and investigated the results in detail (the patch submissions have failed to include glibc testsuite results and have included bugs that would have been detected by the glibc testsuite). But, if you've found bugs in a new glibc port that were not detected by the existing testsuite, then tests for those bugs should be contributed to glibc (even if no existing port has those bugs, improving the test coverage is still a good idea). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com