netdev - Re: latest kselftest with stable tree: bpf failures

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAO_48GHFSa4bkfvEsukJ5snc5F8cXjhp+K9CcZDxOijD-Jo0Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2017 21:04:24 +0530
From:   Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Shuah Khan" 
        <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: latest kselftest with stable tree: bpf failures

Hi Daniel,

On 3 August 2017 at 20:49, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> Hi Sumit,
>
> On 08/03/2017 05:09 PM, Sumit Semwal wrote:
>>
>> Hello Alexei, Daniel, and the bpf community,
>>
>> As part of trying to improve stable kernels' testing, we're running
>> ~current kselftests with stable kernels (4.4 and 4.9 for now), and
>> reporting issues.
>
>
> Thanks for the report, I haven't been tracking the BPF testsuite
> with stable kernels much so far. I will take a look! Just to clarify,
> with '~current kselftests' you mean the one in current Linus' tree
> or the ones corresponding to the 4.4 and 4.9 -stable kernels?
I meant current Linus's release (4.12) atm.

>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
Best,
Sumit.
>
>> While doing this, we see some failures in the bpf tests - most of them
>> look like they are due to trying to test missing features.
>>
>> In Greg's opinion (and mine too :) ), when tests can't find the
>> feature they're trying to test, they should 'degrade gracefully', eg
>> perhaps SKIP instead of FAIL( or core dumps).
>>
>> As you guys are the experts in BPF, may I request someone from this
>> community to look at how can it be achieved with bpf tests?
>>
>> Appreciate the help!
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Sumit.
>>
>



-- 
Thanks and regards,

Sumit Semwal
Linaro Mobile Group - Kernel Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs