Kernel Mocking

[Kenneth Adam Miller]

Well I think that a function or system call semantics replacement facility
would be useful to unit testers everywhere. It would be benign of course,
requiring that the unit testing framework request of the kernel that it
replace the kernel facilities specified prior to the test, and
automatically replace them afterward. So, this isn't anything akin to doing
anything malicious, it requires user cooperation in order to hook. It's not
like something forcibly done. I'm thinking of an intel pin for kernel level
code.

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 03:26:40PM -0500, Kenneth Adam Miller wrote:
> > Thanks for your expedient answer!
> >
> > So, I was discussing an alternative to mocking; function hooking. But in
> a
> > benign way. Is there any way to, at runtime replace the functionality of
> code
> > in order that you specify what it does for any given kernel function?
>
> Not really, but there are some hacks you can do if you _really_ know
> what you are doing.
>
> Hint, don't do this, just write "normal" tests for your kernel code, we
> have lots of them already in the source tree, look in tools/selftests/.
>
> Best of luck,
>
> greg k-h
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20150220/f9e32173/attachment.html