linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests: net: Skip test if IPv6 is not configured

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: <6883f3146d073_d14929462@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 17:11:48 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>, 
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, 
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
 kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests: net: Skip test if IPv6 is not
 configured

Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:47:54 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Less opinionated: the tests implicitly depends on the config files
> > in the test directory. Do we have to start making the robust against
> > situations where CONFIGs in that file are missing?
> 
> I was considering adding something like this to the test guidance.
> 
>   ### Ensure necessary kernel config knobs are set
> 
>   Each test directory has a `config` file listing which kernel
>   configuration options the tests depend on. This file must be kept
>   up to date, our CIs build minimal kernels for each test group. 
> 
>   Adding checks inside the tests to validate that the necessary kernel
>   configs are enabled is discouraged. The test author may include such
>   checks, but standalone patches to make tests compatible e.g. with 
>   distro kernel configs are unlikely to be accepted.
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> Primarily trying to minimize the number of patches and adjustments 
> we'd see, as the matrix of systems and kernel configs can easily get
> out of hand..

This is great!

It's not really feasible to maintain tests with arbitrary missing
dependencies.