Re: Kernel testing

Seth M. Landsman (
Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:00:52 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> > > > 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 ...
> > >
> > > I think I mentioned something like this in my initial message. The
> > > simplest way to do this would be with (possibly PGPed) automated email
> > > reports to a database building engine.
> >
> > Probably should have read the first message more carefully ... :)
> >
> > Anyways, I don't know if PGP would be necessary, we wouldn't be
> > sending anything critical, I'd hope. The implementation method is a
> > different matter entirely, something to be discussed sometime in the
> > future ...
> >
> > What is the general consensus? Do we have the blessing of the
> > Powers-That-Be to go ahead and try to break this kernel and all kernels
> > the days to come? :)
> One thing that seems to be a major problem to me would be the fact
> that unlike the cryptography people, we are talking about doing things
> that may down the machine, and even while operating properly may make
> the machine unusable while it is running. The crypto people have
> software which is sitting nicely in the background.

Of course. My impression is that the bugs don't start to make
themselves really known until we have a load of $NORMAL_LOAD * 25 anyway
... My conparison with the RC5 people was their setup of a central
location where data is kept.
The testing suite would be useless unless we have a central
facility to take in the reports. If the log file never gets off someone's
machine, or if we deal with incomplete reports ("I got an oops" "what
kind?" "I dunno"), this isn't going to accomplish anything.