netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/1] Introduction of the tc 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:13:31 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Lucas Bates <lucasb@...atatu.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/1] Introduction of the tc tests

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:48 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:37:29 -0700
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Lucas Bates <lucasb@...atatu.com> wrote:
>>> Apologies for sending this as one big patch. I've been sitting on this a little
>>> too long, but it's ready and I wanted to get it out.
>>>
>>> There are a limited number of tests to start - I plan to add more on a regular
>>> basis.
>>>
>>> Lucas Bates (1):
>>>   selftests: Introduce tc testsuite
>>
>> Nice work!
>>
>> Is there any particular reason you want to put these tests in kernel tree
>> especially tools/testing/selftests/ ?
>
> Yeah, it would be absolutely terrible if we had more tests in the
> kernel selftests area for networking.
>
> More seriously, we need more, not less, tests in the kernel networking
> selftests directory.
>
> It doesn't belong in iproute2 because we want a place to put things
> that automatically get tested when someone makes kernel changes and
> can be integrated into the kernel development workflow.
>
> I want as many tests as possible under there, so I'm really surprised
> that you're asking "why" tests are being added there.

I thought tools/testing/selftests/ is mainly for those tests close to
kernel ABI and API. What is the criteria for these tests? If any test
can fit in, we somehow would merge the whole LTP...

I definitely don't object more tests, I am just wondering if we should
put it to tools/testing/selftests/ or host it somewhere else.