netdev - Re: [PATCH] selftest: net: reuseport_bpf_numa: don't fail if no numa support

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:   Wed, 07 Mar 2018 13:25:00 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     anders.roxell@...aro.org
Cc:     shuah@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftest: net: reuseport_bpf_numa: don't fail if no
 numa support

From: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Date: Tue,  6 Mar 2018 16:10:04 +0100

> The reuseport_bpf_numa test case fails there's no numa support.  The
> test shouldn't fail if there's no support it should be skipped with a
> pass.
> 
> Fixes: 3c2c3c16aaf6 ("reuseport, bpf: add test case for bpf_get_numa_node_id")
> Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>

I don't know about this.

The test did not pass.  So it should not be "skipped with a pass".

We were unable to run it at all, which means we don't know if it
would pass or fail.  This means there is a third state besides
pass or fail which we must acknowledge and implement.