Re: [RFC] In-kernel fuzz testing for apps

[Laura Abbott]

On 11/18/2015 03:39 PM, Andrey Utkin wrote:
> Me and my friend have once talked about careful application development,
> which includes awareness about all possible error conditions.
> So we have collected ideas about making kernel (or, in some cases, libc)
> "hostile" to careless application, and we present it so that the idea
> doesn't get lost, and maybe even gets real if somebody wants some
> features from the list.
>
> - (libc) crash instantly if memcpy detects regions overlapping;
> - return EINTR as much as possible;
> - send/recv/etc. returns EAGAIN on non-blocking sockets as much as possible;
> - send/recv tend to result in short writes/reads, e.g. 1 byte at a time,
> to break assumption about sending/receiving some "not-so-big" thing at once;
> - let write return ENOSPC sometimes;
> - scheduler behaves differently from common case (e.g. let it tend to
> stop a thread at some syscalls);
> - return allocation failures;
> - make OOM killer manic!
> - make clocks which are not monotonic to go backward frequently;
> - pretend the time is 2038 year or later;
> - (arguable) close syscall returns non-zero first time, or randomly;
> - (arguable) special arch having NULL not all zero-bits. Actually I
> don't believe it is feasible to make a lot of modern software to run in
> such situation.
>
> These horrific modes should be enabled per-process or per-executable-file.
>
> Thanks for your time and for any kind comment.

Check out CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION, lib/fault_inject.c . There are a few things
there already. You could expand on that for other functionality.

Thanks,
Laura
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/