linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add test for "bpftool feature" command

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:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:55:12 +0100
From:   Michal Rostecki <mrostecki@...nsuse.org>
To:     Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/5] selftests/bpf: Add test for "bpftool
 feature" command

On 2/21/20 12:28 PM, Quentin Monnet wrote:
>> +    @default_iface
>> +    def test_feature_dev(self, iface):
>> +        expected_patterns = [
>> +            SECTION_SYSCALL_CONFIG_PATTERN,
>> +            SECTION_PROGRAM_TYPES_PATTERN,
>> +            SECTION_MAP_TYPES_PATTERN,
>> +            SECTION_HELPERS_PATTERN,
>> +            SECTION_MISC_PATTERN,
>> +        ]
> 
> Mixed feeling on the tests with plain output, as we keep telling people
> that plain output should not be parsed (not reliable, may change). But
> if you want to run one or two tests with it, why not, I guess.

I thought about that and yes, testing the plain output is probably
redundant and makes those tests less readable. However, the only plain
output test which I would like to keep there is test_feature_macros -
because I guess that we are not planning to change names or patterns of
generated macros (or if so, we should test that change).