Re: RFC - kernel selftest result documentation (KTAP)

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:30:45AM +0000, Bird, Tim wrote:
> Agreed.  You only need machine-parsable data if you expect the CI
> system to do something more with the data than just present it.
> What that would be, that would be common for all tests (or at least
> many test), is unclear.  Maybe there are patterns in the diagnostic
> data that could lead to higher-level analysis, or even automated
> fixes, that don't become apparent if the data is unstructured.  But
> it's hard to know until you have lots of data.  I think just getting
> the other things consistent is a good priority right now.

Yeah. I think the main place for this is performance analysis, but I
think that's a separate system entirely. TAP is really strictly yes/no,
where as performance analysis a whole other thing. The only other thing
I can think of is some kind of feature analysis, but that would be built
out of the standard yes/no output. i.e. if I create a test that checks
for specific security mitigation features (*cough*LKDTM*cough*), having
a dashboard that shows features down one axis and architectures and/or
kernel versions on other axes, then I get a pretty picture. But it's
still being built out of the yes/no info.

*shrug*

I think diagnostic should be expressly non-machine-oriented.

-- 
Kees Cook