linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] test/vsock: add install target

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]

Message-ID: <20240711071455.5abfaae9@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:14:55 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
Cc: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
 "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>, "virtualization@...ts.linux.dev"
 <virtualization@...ts.linux.dev>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] test/vsock: add install target

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:38:01 +0200 Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > Usually vsock tests test both the driver (virtio-vsock) in the guest and the
> > device in the host kernel (vhost-vsock). So I usually run the tests in 2
> > nested VMs to test the latest changes for both the guest and the host.
> > 
> > I don't know enough selftests, but do you think it is possible to integrate
> > them?
> > 
> > CCing Stefan who is the original author and may remember more reasons about
> > this choice.  
> 
> It's probably because of the manual steps in tools/testing/vsock/README:
> 
>   The following prerequisite steps are not automated and must be performed prior
>   to running tests:
> 
>   1. Build the kernel, make headers_install, and build these tests.
>   2. Install the kernel and tests on the host.
>   3. Install the kernel and tests inside the guest.
>   4. Boot the guest and ensure that the AF_VSOCK transport is enabled.
> 
> If you want to automate this for QEMU, VMware, and Hyper-V that would be
> great. It relies on having a guest running under these hypervisors and
> that's not trivial to automate (plus it involves proprietary software
> for VMware and Hyper-V that may not be available without additional
> license agreements and/or payment).

Not sure if there's a requirement that full process is automated.
Or at least if there is we are already breaking it in networking
because for some tests we need user to export some env variables
to point the test to the right interfaces and even a remote machine 
to generate traffic. If the env isn't set up tests return 4 (SKIP).
I don't feel strongly that ksft + env approach is better but at
least it gives us easy access to the basic build and packaging
features from ksft. Up to you but thought I'd ask.