qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qtest: add a fuzz test to fdc-test


From: Blue Swirl
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qtest: add a fuzz test to fdc-test
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:30:44 +0000

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Kevin Wolf <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am 21.05.2012 10:11, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>> Il 21/05/2012 09:51, Kevin Wolf ha scritto:
>>>>> GTESTER check-qtest-i386
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_read_data: controller not ready for reading
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_read_data: controller not ready for reading
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_unimplemented: unimplemented command 0x1f
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_unimplemented: unimplemented command 0xa8
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_read_data: controller not ready for reading
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_read_data: controller not ready for reading
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_read_data: controller not ready for reading
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_unimplemented: unimplemented command 0x37
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_read_data: controller not ready for reading
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_read_data: controller not ready for reading
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_read_data: controller not ready for reading
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_read_data: controller not ready for reading
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_read_data: controller not ready for reading
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_read_data: controller not ready for reading
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_unimplemented: unimplemented command 0x93
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_unimplemented: unimplemented command 0xe4
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_unimplemented: unimplemented command 0xc1
>>>>> FLOPPY ERROR: fdctrl_unimplemented: unimplemented command 0x92
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe they should be fixed first.
>>> What do you mean by fixing? Turning them into DPRINTFs?
>>
>> Or trace events?
>
> Yeah, you could turn all FLOPPY_DPRINTFs into trace events. But the
> point here is that today it's a FLOPPY_ERROR, and except for register
> fuzzing they report real problems with the emulation and not just some
> debugging information. So I'm not sure if hiding them is really a fix.

While not a DoS, letting the guest spam the console at will is not
nice either. Maybe we need a new method to enable a selected set of
printouts, something like '-d unimplemented'. That way no recompiling
would be needed.

>
> Kevin



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]