Re: Kernel testing

Seth M. Landsman (
Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:54:53 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Oliver Xymoron wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 wrote:
> > Oliver Xymoron <> writes:
> > >I think the time is very flexible - I was thinking the bulk of the time
> > >would be spent on stress testing like crashme rather than functionality
> > >testing. Even a very complete set of functionality tests would be well
> > >less than 6 hours, I'd think, because any single "does this syscall
> > >return the right value?" test is going to be nearly instantaneous.
> >
> > Well, real stress testing involves twisted minds running things that
> > deliberately try to break the code, preferably under heavy load.
> Agreed - my point is just that stress testing usually has indefinite time
> spans - you can run your test for 10 minutes or overnight if you want more
> confidence.
> > But, let me suggest the Posix conformance suites as a good first past
> > test for stupid brokeness.
> This was something I was considering, and looking at the redistribution
> license (, it looks like
> the NIST code could be incorporated into a GPLed test suite because it's
> produced by the government and therefore not protected by copyright.

A sick thought crossed my mind ... What if we doing something
similar to what the cryptography folks are doing. Have people run the
stress test when they want, how ever long they want, and have it
communicate with a main server someplace which will keep track of these
things ...
What do you people think?