On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 2:40 AM Andrea Parri <andrea.pa...@amarulasolutions.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:22:50AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > 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). > > FWIW, I'd also be interested in discussing these developments. > > There have been several activities/projects related to such "tooling" > (thread safety analysis) recently: I could point out the (brand new) > Google Summer of Code "Applying Clang Thread Safety Analyser to Linux > Kernel" project [1] and (for the "dynamic analysis" side) the efforts > to revive the Kernel Thread sanitizer [2]. I should also mention the > efforts to add (support for) "unmarked" accesses and to formalize the > notion of "data race" in the memory consistency model [3]. > > So, again, I'd welcome a discussion on these works/ideas. > > Thanks, > Andrea
I would be interested in discussing all of this too: thread safety annotations, ktsan, unmarked accesses.
