Re: Formal description of system call interface

On 11/06/2016 05:39 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > Hello, > > This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week > regarding providing a formal description of system calls (user API). > > The idea come up in the context of syzkaller, syscall fuzzer, which > has descriptions for

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On 11/06/2016 05:39 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > Hello, > > This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week > regarding providing a formal description of system calls (user API). > > The idea come up in the context of syzkaller, syscall fuzzer, which > has descriptions for

Re: Formal description of system call interface

* Dmitry Vyukov [2016-11-21 16:03:04 +0100]: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > * Dmitry Vyukov [2016-11-06 14:39:28 -0800]: > >> For the reference, current syzkaller descriptions are in txt files here: > >>

Re: Formal description of system call interface

* Dmitry Vyukov [2016-11-21 16:03:04 +0100]: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > * Dmitry Vyukov [2016-11-06 14:39:28 -0800]: > >> For the reference, current syzkaller descriptions are in txt files here: > >> https://github.com/google/syzkaller/tree/master/sys > > ... >

Re: Formal description of system call interface

Hi! > > Looking ahead into the future, I was also thinking that if this becomes > > robust, we could also start an integration specification, that could > > describe how different system calls interact with each other. Like > > open() to read(), write() and close(). > > > > But this is just an

Re: Formal description of system call interface

Hi! > > Looking ahead into the future, I was also thinking that if this becomes > > robust, we could also start an integration specification, that could > > describe how different system calls interact with each other. Like > > open() to read(), write() and close(). > > > > But this is just an

Re: Formal description of system call interface

Hi! > Description of "returns fd or this set of errors" looks simple and useful. > Any test system or fuzzer will be able to verify that kernel actually returns > claimed return values. Also Carlos expressed interested in errno values > in the context of glibc. > I would do it from day one. > >

Re: Formal description of system call interface

Hi! > Description of "returns fd or this set of errors" looks simple and useful. > Any test system or fuzzer will be able to verify that kernel actually returns > claimed return values. Also Carlos expressed interested in errno values > in the context of glibc. > I would do it from day one. > >

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:38:20 +0100 > Cyril Hrubis wrote: > > >> I'm not sure if something like this is really doable or in the scope of >> this project, but it may be worth a try. >> > > Looking ahead

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:38:20 +0100 > Cyril Hrubis wrote: > > >> I'm not sure if something like this is really doable or in the scope of >> this project, but it may be worth a try. >> > > Looking ahead into the future, I was also thinking

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:38:20 +0100 Cyril Hrubis wrote: > I'm not sure if something like this is really doable or in the scope of > this project, but it may be worth a try. > Looking ahead into the future, I was also thinking that if this becomes robust, we could also start an

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:38:20 +0100 Cyril Hrubis wrote: > I'm not sure if something like this is really doable or in the scope of > this project, but it may be worth a try. > Looking ahead into the future, I was also thinking that if this becomes robust, we could also start an integration

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > Re more complex side effects. I always feared that a description suitable > for automatic verification (i.e. zero false positives, otherwise it is > useless) > may be too difficult to achieve. > > Cyril, Tavis, can

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > Re more complex side effects. I always feared that a description suitable > for automatic verification (i.e. zero false positives, otherwise it is > useless) > may be too difficult to achieve. > > Cyril, Tavis, can you come up with some

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week >> regarding providing a formal description of system calls

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week >> regarding providing a formal description of system calls (user API). >> >> The idea come up in

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > Hi! >> We identified a surprisingly large number of potential users for such >> descriptions: >> - fuzzers (syzkaller, trinity, iknowthis) >> - strace/syscall tracepoints (capturing indirect arguments and >>printing

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > Hi! >> We identified a surprisingly large number of potential users for such >> descriptions: >> - fuzzers (syzkaller, trinity, iknowthis) >> - strace/syscall tracepoints (capturing indirect arguments and >>printing human-readable info)

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Dmitry Vyukov [2016-11-06 14:39:28 -0800]: >> This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week >> regarding providing a formal description of system calls (user API). > yes a

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Dmitry Vyukov [2016-11-06 14:39:28 -0800]: >> This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week >> regarding providing a formal description of system calls (user API). > yes a database of the syscall abis would be useful

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > Hello, > > This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week > regarding providing a formal description of system calls (user API). > > The idea come up in the context of syzkaller, syscall fuzzer, which

Re: Formal description of system call interface

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > Hello, > > This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week > regarding providing a formal description of system calls (user API). > > The idea come up in the context of syzkaller, syscall fuzzer, which > has descriptions

Re: Formal description of system call interface

Hi! > We identified a surprisingly large number of potential users for such > descriptions: > - fuzzers (syzkaller, trinity, iknowthis) > - strace/syscall tracepoints (capturing indirect arguments and >printing human-readable info) > - generation of entry points for C libraries (glibc,

Re: Formal description of system call interface

Hi! > We identified a surprisingly large number of potential users for such > descriptions: > - fuzzers (syzkaller, trinity, iknowthis) > - strace/syscall tracepoints (capturing indirect arguments and >printing human-readable info) > - generation of entry points for C libraries (glibc,

Re: Formal description of system call interface

* Dmitry Vyukov [2016-11-06 14:39:28 -0800]: > This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week > regarding providing a formal description of system calls (user API). yes a database of the syscall abis would be useful ..depending on the level of detail it

Re: Formal description of system call interface

* Dmitry Vyukov [2016-11-06 14:39:28 -0800]: > This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week > regarding providing a formal description of system calls (user API). yes a database of the syscall abis would be useful ..depending on the level of detail it has. (right now

Formal description of system call interface

Hello, This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week regarding providing a formal description of system calls (user API). The idea come up in the context of syzkaller, syscall fuzzer, which has descriptions for 1000+ syscalls mostly concentrating on types of arguments and

Formal description of system call interface

Hello, This is notes from the discussion we had at Linux Plumbers this week regarding providing a formal description of system calls (user API). The idea come up in the context of syzkaller, syscall fuzzer, which has descriptions for 1000+ syscalls mostly concentrating on types of arguments and