On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 03:31:40PM -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:36:38AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > That way, when we drop hb->lock to wait, futex and rt_mutex wait state is > > > consistent. > > > > > > > > > In any case, it passes our inadequate testing. > > > > It passed my CI tools/testing/selftests/futex/functional/run.sh. Did you > > also > > happen to run a fuzz tester? > > I did not. I'm not sure how good trinity is at poking holes in futexes. > I would love a domain specific fuzzer for futex, but I suspect it would > end up being me writing it :-( >
Trinity had some futex awareness and found several issues in the past, I can't say how likely it is to find more. I haven't tried ... syzcaller? yet. I had set out to do this in the futextest suite, which I later merged into kselftests, but I scrapped the fuzz testing, deferring to trinity. Perhaps that is a project we should resurrect. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center
