On 2017/3/14 2:35, Vince Weaver wrote: > On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 04:10:37PM +0800, Tan Xiaojun wrote: >> >>> 2)If it is, where we will fix it more appropriate, perf_fuzzer(not set >>> 0 or 100) or kernel(limit 1 to 99), or maybe it is the bug of >>> hardware(too many hardware interruptions)? >> >> I think the best would be if the fuzzer would not set 0,100, those are >> clearly 'unsafe' settings and you pretty much get to keep the pieces. >> >> I would like to preserve these settings for people that 'know' what >> they're doing and are willing to take the risk, but clearly, when you >> take the guard-rails off, things can come apart. > > sorry for the delay responding, these e-mails ended up in the spam folder > somehow. > > I could add a new "avoid stupid things as root" flag for the perf_fuzzer. > > Besides this issue, are there other known things to skip? > > Generally running a fuzzer as root can be a bad idea which is why I don't > test that use case very often. > I think there were other issues in the past, like certain ftrace > combinations being known to lock the system. > > Vince >
It would be better if you could add such a flag to the perf_fuzzer. And I have not found any other problems yet. By the way. Use Non-root user to test is OK, and they do not have permission to configure these parameters. Thank you for your reply. Xiaojun. > . >
