Re: [RFC PATCH 22/30] Code tagging based fault injection
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Date: 2022-08-31 17:30:36
Also in:
io-uring, linux-arch, linux-bcache, linux-iommu, linux-mm, lkml, xen-devel
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:37:14PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 23:50, Suren Baghdasaryan [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> This adds a new fault injection capability, based on code tagging. To use, simply insert somewhere in your code dynamic_fault("fault_class_name") and check whether it returns true - if so, inject the error. For example if (dynamic_fault("init")) return -EINVAL;Hi Suren, If this is going to be used by mainline kernel, it would be good to integrate this with fail_nth systematic fault injection: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/lib/fault-inject.c#L109 Otherwise these dynamic sites won't be tested by testing systems doing systematic fault injection testing.
That's a discussion we need to have, yeah. We don't want two distinct fault injection frameworks, we'll have to have a discussion as to whether this is (or can be) better enough to make a switch worthwhile, and whether a compatibility interface is needed - or maybe there's enough distinct interesting bits in both to make merging plausible? The debugfs interface for this fault injection code is necessarily different from our existing fault injection - this gives you a fault injection point _per callsite_, which is huge - e.g. for filesystem testing what I need is to be able to enable fault injection points within a given module. I can do that easily with this, not with our current fault injection. I think the per-callsite fault injection points would also be pretty valuable for CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION_USERCOPY, too. OTOH, existing kernel fault injection can filter based on task - this fault injection framework doesn't have that. Easy enough to add, though. Similar for the interval/probability/ratelimit stuff. fail_function is the odd one out, I'm not sure how that would fit into this model. Everything else I've seen I think fits into this model. Also, it sounds like you're more familiar with our existing fault injection than I am, so if I've misunderstood anything about what it can do please do correct me. Interestingly: I just discovered from reading the code that CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION_STACKTRACE_FILTER is a thing (hadn't before because it depends on !X86_64 - what?). That's cool, though.