linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/6] selftests/bpf: add test for XDP metadata support in tun driver

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: <0ec1f766-a0be-42ed-b505-0fc94205f724@hetzner-cloud.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 20:29:01 +0100
From: Marcus Wichelmann <marcus.wichelmann@...zner-cloud.de>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, jasowang@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 pabeni@...hat.com, andrii@...nel.org, eddyz87@...il.com, mykolal@...com,
 ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
 yonghong.song@...ux.dev, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
 sdf@...ichev.me, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
 hawk@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/6] selftests/bpf: add test for XDP metadata
 support in tun driver


Am 26.02.25 um 20:00 schrieb Stanislav Fomichev:
> On 02/26, Marcus Wichelmann wrote:
>> Am 24.02.25 um 18:14 schrieb Stanislav Fomichev:
>>> On 02/24, Marcus Wichelmann wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> +void test_xdp_context_tuntap(void)
>>>
>>> tap0 is already used by lwt tests, so there is a chance this new test
>>> will clash with it? Should we run your new test in a net namespace
>>> to be safe? Bastien recently added a change where you can make
>>> your test run in a net ns by naming the function test_ns_xxx.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, cool, I didn't know of that feature.
>>
>> For reference, you probably mean this one?
>> commit c047e0e0e435 ("selftests/bpf: Optionally open a dedicated namespace to run test in it")
> 
> Yes.
>   
>> As long as the tests are not run in parallel, the test function SHOULD
>> clean up well enough behind itself that no conflicts should occur.
>> But having that bit of extra safety won't hurt.
> 
> The test you're adding is gonna be running in parallel with most of the
> other test cases. If you want it to be executed in a serial fashion
> (which I don't think you do, running in parallel in a ns is a better
> option), the function as to be called serial_test_xxx.
> 

Ah, I didn't know parallel execution is opt-out. Then I must have been
lucky that it didn't cause issues.

Added it in the V4 patch series that I'll send in a bit.