linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/4] selftests/bpf: integrate test_tc_tunnel.sh tests into test

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: <CAADnVQKQRCC8KJZewRsakDYsFmGZBYuEVYV6xEL2X1Kg06+AYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 09:15:02 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, ebpf@...uxfoundation.org, 
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, 
	Bastien Curutchet <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/4] selftests/bpf: integrate
 test_tc_tunnel.sh tests into test_progs

On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 11:58 PM Alexis Lothoré
<alexis.lothore@...tlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexei,
>
> On Wed Oct 22, 2025 at 6:44 PM CEST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:52 AM Alexis Lothoré
> > <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> A note about test duration:
> >> the overall test duration, in my setup (x86 qemu-based setup, running on
> >> x86), is around 13s. Reviews on similar series ([1]) shows that such a
> >> duration is not really desirable for CI integration. I checked how to
> >> reduce it, and it appears that most of it is due to the fact that for each
> >> subtest, we verify that if we insert bpf encapsulation (egress) program,
> >> and nothing on server side, we properly fail to connect client to server.
> >> This test then relies on timeout connection,  and I already reduced it as
> >> much as possible, but I guess going below the current value (500ms) will
> >> just start to make the whole test flaky.
> >>
> >> I took this "check connection failure" from the original script, and kind
> >> of like it for its capacity to detect false negatives, but should I
> >> eventually get rid of it ?
> >
> > I vote to get rid of it.
> > I'd rather have test_progs that are quick enough to execute for CI and
> > for all developers then more in depth coverage for the corner case.
>
> ACK. I' ll get rid of it. For the record, I drop down to ~3s in my testing
> setup instead of ~13s when removing this "ensure connection failure test".

Good. 3s is fine.

> > Note that for the verifier range test we randomize the test coverage,
> > since the whole permutation takes hours to run. Instead we randomly
> > pick a couple tests and run only those. Since CI runs for every patch
> > the overall coverage is good enough.
> > Would something like that possible here ? and in the other xsk test?
>
> I see that test_verifier takes some "to" and "from" indexes, selecting the
> range of tests that we are able to run. Is this the mechanism you are
> referring to ? (and if so, I guess the rand part is handled by the CI
> runner ?)

I'm talking about SLOW_TESTS=1 in reg_bounds.c