linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: rtc: Increase test timeout so that all tests run

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]

Message-ID: <20220112191056.c7gflbokgm2pispg@notapiano>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:10:56 -0500
From:   Nícolas F. R. A. Prado 
        <nfraprado@...labora.com>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: rtc: Increase test timeout so that all tests
 run

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 05:57:25PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 12/01/2022 11:53:59-0500, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> > The timeout setting for the rtc kselftest is currently 90 seconds.
> > However, two of the tests set alarms, which take one minute to complete
> > each. So the timeout should be at least 120. Set it to 180, so that all
> > tests are able to complete and still have some slack.
> 
> Hum, I don't get the logic from that, a test takes up to 60 seconds and
> the timeout is 90s per test so we already have plenty of slack there.

Actually I did re-test locally and it is an issue since the 90s timeout is not
per-test, but to the whole rtc test suite. Also it requires running the test
through the selftest runner, and since the alarm is set to the next top of the
minute, you might get lucky and it might all take less than 90 seconds.

However none of this was clear in my original commit message, so I'll send a v2
with a better explanation.

Thanks,
Nícolas