linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] selfttests: timers ksft

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2017 18:51:11 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
To:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] selfttests: timers ksft_ stubs handling changes

On 08/10/2017 06:10 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> wrote:
>> This patch series consists of changes to:
>>
>> Move ksft_ stubs from individual tests into kselftest_stubs.h and change
>> tests to include it.
>>
>> Fix posix_timers and freq-step tests to run without ksft_ framework.
>>
>> This is in preparation to convert timers tests to ksft TAP 13 format.
>>
>> Question for John Stultz:
>>
>> The conversion work will be easier without the requirement to be able to
>> build and run these tests without ksft_ framework. So far the stubs are
>> simpler. It is might be necessary to ifdef some code paths to have sane
>> output for both KTEST and !KTEST cases.
>>
>> Would it be easier to pull in kselftest.h into timers external repo
>> (if one still exists). This is based on the observation that newer
>> timer tests don't support !KTEST case e.g: posix_timers and freq-step.
>>
>> Please review and let me know how you would like me to proceed with the
>> conversion. I am looking for answer to how important is it to continue to
>> support !KTEST case.
> 
> Yea. I'm thinking at this point I'm fine with dropping the attempt to
> keep kselftest and my external timekeeping tests in sync.

Would you like me to clean !KTEST support or leave it the way it is.
It sounds like, I will drop these patches anyway.

> 
> Though something that might be nice however is having some place that
> keeps tarball releases of kselftest around? As it would make pulling
> tests onto a target machine a bit easier. Does that already exist?
> 

There is an install script tools/testing/selftests/gen_kselftest_tar.sh
for generating tar-ball for compiled tests at the moment. There is none
for source package.

thanks,
-- Shuah