From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 31 23:15:42 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id XAA04833 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:15:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA04813 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 23:15:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16447; Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:18:01 +0300 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:18:00 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi To: Tony Kimball cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: random traps In-Reply-To: <199603312159.PAA26843@compound> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Eat good food, preserve nature, be nice to all nice people :) On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Tony Kimball wrote: > > I once had a program which might do the stability of FreeBSD a world > of good, if applied in earnest. That program generated random > syscalls. It would reliably crash Ultrix or SunOS 4.0.x or 4.1.[01] > within 5-50 seconds (depending on the OS more strongly than chance:-), > but it would run forever under SunOS 4.1.[23] (or more precisely would > run repeatedly ad nauseam without crashing the box). I haven't tried > it in a few years, on more modern systems, but the degree of > resistance to this abuse was at the time almost perfectly correlative > to my intuitive notion of OS quality. So... I wonder whether the > intuitive quality of FreeBSD might not be given a hand up by such a > treatment... What became of it? I would appreciate having a copy... (to test FreeBSD with it, among the other things) > > Just a thought. > > //alk > > Sander