LTP has a long way to go
Posted Jun 6, 2006 19:34 UTC (Tue) by Blaisorblade
In reply to: LTP has a long way to go
Parent article: The kernel lock validator
The problem of LTP is that it, in itself, tests syscall semantics, and many tests are unit tests. They can help in some cases (especially for strange arches, like say UML) - and they're very useful when a functionality is introduced, especially if the implementation is complex (that's my experience - I wrote together the implementation and a very complex testcase of it in one project).
nanosleep() tests aren't going to catch many bugs - nanosleep() uses are very simple.
But, say, run LTP on every possible drivers set, with a dmraid setup on "normal" RAID volumes on IDE and SCSI and SATA physical disks (since many bugs are in hardware drivers)...
Or combine networking tests with analisys of packet capture data and match sent data with on-wire data (supposing it's possible - you actually need a full TCP/IP stack to run on captured data, with additional correctness checking features)...
Then you'll find real bugs. However this starts being difficult.
Another possibility is to extract testcases from atypical applications.
UserModeLinux (on which I work) has been an excellent test-case against ptrace behaviour.
It found subtle bugs in ptrace existing in three kernel releases, in the recent past (one bug lived for 2.6.9 and 2.6.10, affecting security; the other affected x86-64 from 126.96.36.199 to 188.8.131.52).
But in this case, who coded the patches didn't run it.
to post comments)