netdev - Re: [PATCH net] selftests: net: wait for receiver startup in so

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 08:36:48 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, "David S. Miller"
	 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Shuah Khan
	 <shuah@...nel.org>, Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] selftests: net: wait for receiver startup in
 so_txtime.sh

On Fri, 2024-02-09 at 11:17 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 17:45:28 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > But I'm pretty sure that even with that there will be sporadic failures
> > in slow enough environments.
> > 
> > When the host-induced jitter/delay is high enough, packets are dropped
> > and there are functional failures. I'm wondering if we should skip this
> > test entirely when KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW=yes.
> 
> By skip do you mean the same approach as to the gro test?
> Ignore errors? Because keeping the code coverage for KASAN etc.
> would still be good (stating the obvious, sorry).

I see my wording was not clear/misleading, I'm sorry. Yes, I mean
checking KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW in the caller script and ignoring errors.

Cheers,

Paolo