netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 9/9] selftests: vxlan

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: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:54:32 +0800
From: Yujie Liu <yujie.liu@...el.com>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, <roopa@...dia.com>, <razor@...ckwall.org>,
	<petrm@...dia.com>, <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 9/9] selftests: vxlan_mdb: Add MDB bulk deletion
 test

Hi Ido,

I'm from the kernel test robot team. We noticed that this patch
introduced a new group of flush tests. The bot cannot parse the test
result correctly due to some duplicate output in the summary, such
as the following ones marked by arrows:

# Control path: Flush
# -------------------
# TEST: Flush all                                                     [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by port                                                 [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by wrong port                                           [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by specified source VNI                                 [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by unspecified source VNI                               [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by "permanent" state                                    [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by "nopermanent" state                                  [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by specified routing protocol                           [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by unspecified routing protocol                         [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by specified destination IP - IPv4                      [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by unspecified destination IP - IPv4                    [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by specified destination IP - IPv6                      [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by unspecified destination IP - IPv6                    [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by specified UDP destination port                       [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by unspecified UDP destination port                     [ OK ]  <-- [1]
# TEST: Flush by device's UDP destination port                        [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by unspecified UDP destination port                     [ OK ]  <-- [1]
# TEST: Flush by specified destination VNI                            [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by unspecified destination VNI                          [ OK ]  <-- [2]
# TEST: Flush by destination VNI equal to source VNI                  [ OK ]
# TEST: Flush by unspecified destination VNI                          [ OK ]  <-- [2]
# TEST: Flush by VLAN ID                                              [ OK ]

Refer to the code, looks like they are different tests but may print the
same discription:

[1]
	run_cmd "bridge -n $ns1_v4 -d -s mdb get dev vx0 grp 239.1.1.1 src_vni 10010 | grep \"dst_port 22222\""
	log_test $? 0 "Flush by unspecified UDP destination port"

	run_cmd "bridge -n $ns1_v4 -d -s mdb get dev vx0 grp 239.1.1.1 src_vni 10010 | grep 198.51.100.2"
	log_test $? 0 "Flush by unspecified UDP destination port"

[2]
	run_cmd "bridge -n $ns1_v4 -d -s mdb get dev vx0 grp 239.1.1.1 src_vni 10010 | grep \" vni 20011\""
	log_test $? 0 "Flush by unspecified destination VNI"

	run_cmd "bridge -n $ns1_v4 -d -s mdb get dev vx0 grp 239.1.1.1 src_vni 10010 | grep 198.51.100.2"
	log_test $? 0 "Flush by unspecified destination VNI"

Althought we can walkaround this problem at the bot side, we would still
like to consult you about whether it is expected or by design to have the
duplicate test descriptions, and is it possible to give them different
descriptions to clearly tell them apart? Could you please give us
some guidance?

Thanks,
Yujie