linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: pmtu.sh: improve the test result processing

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, 9 Nov 2020 11:42:33 +0800
From:   Po-Hsu Lin <po-hsu.lin@...onical.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: pmtu.sh: improve the test result processing

On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 7:02 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu,  5 Nov 2020 18:50:51 +0800 Po-Hsu Lin wrote:
> > This test will treat all non-zero return codes as failures, it will
> > make the pmtu.sh test script being marked as FAILED when some
> > sub-test got skipped.
> >
> > Improve the result processing by
> >   * Only mark the whole test script as SKIP when all of the
> >     sub-tests were skipped
> >   * If the sub-tests were either passed or skipped, the overall
> >     result will be PASS
> >   * If any of them has failed, the overall result will be FAIL
> >   * Treat other return codes (e.g. 127 for command not found) as FAIL
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Po-Hsu Lin <po-hsu.lin@...onical.com>
>
> Patch 1 looks like a cleanup while patch 2 is more of a fix, can we
> separate the two and apply the former to -next and latter to 5.10?
> They shouldn't conflict, right?
>

Hello Jakub,

Yes the first patch is just changing return code to $ksft_skip, the
real fix is the second one. However the second patch was based on the
first one, if we want to apply them separately we might need to change
this $ksft_skip handling part in the second patch.

What should I do to deal with this?
Resend the former for -next and rebase + resend the latter (plus the
fix to remove case 1) for 5.10 without the former patch?
Thanks!

> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
> > index fb53987..5c86fb1 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
> > @@ -1652,7 +1652,23 @@ run_test() {
> >       return $ret
> >       )
> >       ret=$?
> > -     [ $ret -ne 0 ] && exitcode=1
> > +     case $ret in
> > +             0)
> > +                     all_skipped=false
> > +                     [ $exitcode=$ksft_skip ] && exitcode=0
> > +             ;;
> > +             1)
> > +                     all_skipped=false
> > +                     exitcode=1
> > +             ;;
>
> Does it make sense to remove this case? The handling is identical to
> the default case *).
>

Yes you're right, we can remove this part.

> > +             $ksft_skip)
> > +                     [ $all_skipped = true ] && exitcode=$ksft_skip
> > +             ;;
> > +             *)
> > +                     all_skipped=false
> > +                     exitcode=1
> > +             ;;
> > +     esac
> >
> >       return $ret
> >  }
> > @@ -1786,6 +1802,7 @@ usage() {
> >  #
> >  exitcode=0
> >  desc=0
> > +all_skipped=true
> >
> >  while getopts :ptv o
> >  do
>