RE: [Fault-injection-developer] Couple of issues downloading and building the FITH source code

[Rob R. <err...@li...>]

On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 20:05, Rob Rhoads wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 19:54, Zhuang, Louis wrote:
> > I agree totally. We'll change README and INSTALL against stock kernel
> > 2.4/2.5. 

Upon further reflection...just so I'm even more clear (sorry if you
already knew this):

At a minimum, break FITH out into 2 packages:

1. One for kernel patches, kernel modules, plus kernel related build
instructions.

2. One for user-space components, plus build scripts (configure file) &
instructions

IOW don't package FITH up as a single tarball that contains both kernel
and user-space components, and one big README for building both.
Bundling them together just isn't a good idea from a Linux kernel
developers perspective.

Also, can you explain why we aren't modifying & using dprobes? Why are
we instead using a modified version of insmod? With your current FITH
implementation, can you inject faults in statically compiled/linked
drivers or kernel code (e.g. not just kernel modules)? 

I have concerns that using a modified insmod, won't fly with kernel
developers. If dprobes isn't sufficient, why can't it be modified, so we
don't have to use a modified version of insmod. I may be drawing the
wrong conclusion here, so don't change it until you explain it. 

Anyone should feel free to jump-in in this discussion, if you
disagree/agree or whatever.

> > 
> Just to clarify, I never expected FIFTH to work on the kernel that
> shipped with RH 8.0. Just that I could build both a stock kernel w/
> relevant patches, and the FIFTH user-space components on a RH 8.0
> system. 
> 
> So it sounds like we are then in agreement. Cool. ;-)
> 

-- 
Rob Rhoads                     mailto:err...@li...
Telecom Software Platforms     office: 503-677-5498
Intel Communications Group

<disclaimer value="pointless">
This email message solely contains my own personal views, 
and not necessarily those of my employer.
</disclaimer>