[Top][All Lists]

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


From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:16:44 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0

On 7/1/19 10:37 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 02:45:29PM +0200, Damien Hedde wrote:
>> This series adds a python framework aiming to provide some ways to do fault
>> injection in a running vm. In its current state, it allows to easily interact
>> with memory, change gpios and qom properties.
>> The framework consists in a python script based on the qmp existing module
>> which allows to interact with the vm.
> How does this compare to qtest?  There seems to be a lot of overlap
> between them.
> Why is it called "fault injection"?  The commands seem to be
> general-purpose device testing functions (like qtest and libqos), not
> functions for testing error code paths as would be expected from a fault
> injection framework.

I understand qtest is to test QEMU, while this framework/command is to
test how the guest react to an hardware faults.

To use the qtest_mem commands you need to run QEMU with the qtest
chardev backend, while this series expose a QMP interface.

To avoid the overlap, a cleaner follow up might be to have qtest wrap
these QMP commands (mostly like HMP commands do).

Another note while looking at a glance, qtest uses the 1st cpu address
space view, this series allow to select a specific cpu.

It makes sense to me to be able to select address spaces by name (more
generic, not restricted to a cpu view, since one might want to inject
fault in a device ram not always mapped to a cpu: dma, emac desc).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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