Re: [RFD] Efficient unit test and fuzz tools for kernel/libc porting

Hi, Joseph

On 2016/7/20 23:47, Joseph Myers wrote:
> 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).
I run test glibc testsuite in previous glibc version with v6 kernel patch
backport to kernel-4.1, without regression. I usually run glibc testsuite
after ltp test result looks good. So, maybe it hard to find a issue by
glibc testsuite in this case.
> 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).
It is good idea. I will review the fixed issues(such as wrong context in
signal, wrong parameter in off_t/stat relative syscalls) and check if it is
suitable to add it to glibc testsuite. (Actually, I do not know which
test suite (ltp or glibc) I should improve for a specific issue).
I hope our tools could help on improving the coverage of syscall relative
code at least.

Thanks.

Bamvor