On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 09:54:57 +0200 Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 1:16 AM Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:17:25 +0000 Aleksandr Nogikh wrote:
quoted
From: Aleksandr Nogikh <redacted>
Remote KCOV coverage collection enables coverage-guided fuzzing of the
code that is not reachable during normal system call execution. It is
especially helpful for fuzzing networking subsystems, where it is
common to perform packet handling in separate work queues even for the
packets that originated directly from the user space.
Enable coverage-guided frame injection by adding a kcov_handle
parameter to sk_buff structure. Initialization in __alloc_skb ensures
that no socket buffer that was generated during a system call will be
missed.
Code that is of interest and that performs packet processing should be
annotated with kcov_remote_start()/kcov_remote_stop().
An alternative approach is to determine kcov_handle solely on the
basis of the device/interface that received the specific socket
buffer. However, in this case it would be impossible to distinguish
between packets that originated from normal background network
processes and those that were intentionally injected from the user
space.
Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Nogikh <redacted>
Could you use skb_extensions for this?
Why? If for space, this is already under a non-production ifdef.
I understand, but the skb_ext infra is there for uncommon use cases
like this one. Any particular reason you don't want to use it?
The slight LoC increase?
Is there any precedent for adding the kcov field to other performance
critical structures?