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  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, 05 Mar 2018 09:14:16 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     sbrivio@...hat.com
Cc:     dsahern@...il.com, weiwan@...gle.com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
        maze@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: Reflect MTU changes on PMTU of exceptions
 for MTU-less routes

From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 13:29:56 +0100

> And about corner cases, from Documentation/dev-tools/kselftest.rst:
> 
> 	These are intended to be small tests to exercise individual code
> 	paths in the kernel. Tests are intended to be run after building, installing
> 	and booting a kernel.
> 
> and:
> 
> 	In general, the rules for selftests are
> 	[...]
> 	 * Don't take too long;
> 
> if you plan to request a self-test for every fix in the networking area,
> you need to substantially change the scope of these self-tests. This stuff
> would instead fit in a comprehensive networking test suite.

Nice try, but this logic doesn't hold.

It says don't make any "_INDIVIDUAL_" test take too long to run.
This allows handling timeouts on individual tests more sanely.

It absolutely does not say that we shouldn't have a lot of tests.

Why are you working so hard to avoid adding a nice test case for the
bug you are fixing?  This makes absolultely not sense at all.

I want as many tests as possible for the networking code, so please
write the test case you are being requested to add.

Thank you.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists