Subject: Re: systrace features?
To: Alistair Crooks <email@example.com>
From: Sam Leffler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/24/2003 09:45:01
--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:37 PM +0200 Alistair Crooks
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:19:07PM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
>> > I have written the code for two extra options to systrace that I
>> > think will help when systrace comes across less than usual situations.
>> > They are:
>> > Randomly cause system calls to fail.
>> > * This can be used to explore code paths that may only be taken
>> > rarely. When used with automatic policy generation, this helps
>> > the policy to converge on a programs actual behaviour.
>> You should learn about the ROC project going on at UCBerkeley/Stanford.
>> Part of that work is a tool for fault injection testing of systems.
>> Look for FIG on Pete Broadwell's page.
> Fault-injection as a means of testing systems has been around for a
> while (ORCHESTRA, http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/SDI/1996/jahanian.html), if
> not before, and newer implementations like Mendosus, leading up to
> hybrid implementations as found in
I suggest you read about ROC. Fault injection is old hat and their papers
recognize that. But what they're trying to do with fault injection is
different. I directed the ROC folks to systrace a while ago; not sure if
they did anything with it. Probably not as they're more interested in using
virtual machines as a vehicle.
Anyway, the point was to make both groups aware of each other (I also poked
the ROC folks).