[Automated-testing] [RFC PATCH] LTP Wrapper for Syzkaller reproducers

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:54 PM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis at suse.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi!
> > I don't have prior experience with LTP tests, but from reading the
> > code it looks reasonable to me.
> >
> > I assume that .needs_tmpdir = 1 ensures that each test runs in its own
> > new temp dir, which is later removed.
>
> Indeed, it's removed recursively by the test library.

:popcorn:

It took me several years to figure out how to more or less reliably
remove dirs after the fuzzer ;)
(no, unlink won't do ;))

> > I've stared for a while at "rem / exec_time_start < 0.98" trying to
> > understand what is that tst_timeout_remaining() returns that we want
> > to kill that process when the ratio is < 0.98... provided that we
> > convert 1 to float but not the other var. I failed to come up with the
> > answer. I have potential answers for "<0.02" and ">0.98". But I assume
> > you know what you are doing :)

Ah, I see, it's not full timeout, then it makes sense.
Probably a comment won't harm.

> The tst_timeout_remaining() returns remaining test timeout, so at test
> start it returns something close to 300 seconds, since that is a default
> for a LTP tests, so this would probably kill a process quite fast, if
> I'm reading right, after a bit more than five seconds. I guess that this
> is something intended for a quick v1 hack rather than for later use.
>
> > Re tst_res(TINFO, "Timeout; killing reproducer"). Not sure how much it
> > pollutes output on 3000 tests. If it is, it can make sense to remove
> > it. Lots of tests run forever, killing it is not something of
> > particular interest generally.
>
> I guess so.
>
> --
> Cyril Hrubis
> chrubis at suse.cz