linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] selftests/bpf: add a new runner for bpftool tests

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <DFPUQZ5PNXKA.12KADC78HCRQ5@bootlin.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 08:57:52 +0100
From: Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>
To: "Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
 Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
 <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>
Cc: "Andrii Nakryiko" <andrii@...nel.org>, "Eduard Zingerman"
 <eddyz87@...il.com>, "Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@...nel.org>, "Daniel
 Borkmann" <daniel@...earbox.net>, "Martin KaFai Lau"
 <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, "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>, "Bastien Curutchet"
 <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com>, "Thomas Petazzoni"
 <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] selftests/bpf: add a new runner for
 bpftool tests

Hi Andrii,

On Thu Jan 15, 2026 at 6:58 PM CET, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 12:59 AM Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation)
> <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>> this series is part of the larger effort aiming to convert all
>> standalone tests to the CI runners so that they are properly executed on
>> patches submission.
>>
>> Some of those tests are validating bpftool behavior(test_bpftool_map.sh,
>> test_bpftool_metadata.sh, test_bpftool_synctypes.py, test_bpftool.py...)
>> and so they do not integrate well in test_progs. This series proposes to
>
> Can you elaborate why they do not integrate well? In my mind,
> test_progs should be the only runner into which we invest effort
> (parallel tests, all the different filtering, etc; why would we have
> to reimplement subsets of this). The fact that we have test_maps and
> test_verifier is historical and if we had enough time we'd merge all
> of them into test_progs.
>
> What exactly in test_progs would prevent us from implementing bpftool
> test runner?

I don't think there is any strong technical blocker preventing from
integrating those tests directly into test_progs. That's rather about
the fact that test_progs tests depends (almost) exclusively on
libbpf/skeletons. Those bpftool tests rather need to directly execute
bpftool and parse its stdout output, so I thought that it made sense to
have a dedicated runner for this. If I'm wrong and so if those tests
should rather be moved in the test_progs runner (eg to avoid duplicating
the runner features), I'm fine with it. Any additional opinion on this
is welcome.

Thanks,

Alexis
-- 
Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com