On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > >> Well, all the stuff I wrote tests for in lkdtm expect the kernel to >> entirely Oops, and examining the Oops from outside is needed to verify >> it was the correct type of Oops. I don't think testing via lkdtm can >> be done from kselftest sensibly. > > Well, at least on arm32, it's definitely oops'ing, but it's not a full > panic, so the oops could be grabbed from dmesg. > > FWIW, below is a log from and arm32 board running mainline v4.3 that > runs through all the non-panic/lockup tests one after the other without > a reboot. ... however, a run on arm64 and it locks up after the OVERFLOW test, so I think you're right that we need an "outside observer" to reliably determine pass/fail on these. We'll start looking at that. Kevin -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>