netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf v2 0/5] fix 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <95bb9c9a-25ed-4b10-a181-987a61e0a24c@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date:   Wed, 30 May 2018 09:44:21 +0900
From:   Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@....ntt.co.jp>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2 0/5] fix test_sockmap



On 5/30/2018 12:48 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 05/27/2018 09:37 PM, Prashant Bhole wrote:
>> This series fixes error handling, timeout and data verification in
>> test_sockmap. Previously it was not able to detect failure/timeout in
>> RX/TX thread because error was not notified to the main thread.
>>
>> Also slightly improved test output by printing parameter values (cork,
>> apply, start, end) so that parameters for all tests are displayed.
>>
>> Prashant Bhole (5):
>>    selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, check test failure
>>    selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, join cgroup in selftest mode
>>    selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, fix test timeout
>>    selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, fix data verification
>>    selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, print additional test options
>>
>>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> After first patch "check test failure" how do we handle the case
> where test is known to cause timeouts because we are specifically testing
> these cases. This is the 'cork' parameter we discussed in the last
> series. It looks like with this series the test may still throw an
> error?

Sorry. In your comment in last series, did you mean to skip error 
checking only for all cork tests (for now)?

-Prashant