netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] selftests/bpf: skip verifier tests that depend on CONFIG_CGROUP

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: <20181213060651.u4hfrglhva4x7hgl@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:06:52 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc:     Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] selftests/bpf: skip verifier tests that
 depend on CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 02:32:01PM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> 
> To summarize, I like your idea about doing runtime tests and I think I
> can make it work quite nicely without any config_disabled ugliness by
> looking at the prog_type of each test.
> I can send an RFC patch series out if there still a small chance you could
> take it, but if you've already set you mind, I'd just keep them
> internally. So let me know if you have a hard NACK on the runtime probing
> approach or there is still some wiggle room.

If there is no uapi/bpf.h change, it's likely fine.
Like if test_verifier tries to load 'foo() {return 0;}' prog
for the .prog_type in the test that failed to confirm that
such prog type is supported by the kernel...
that is fine, since no extra prog_loads are happening for the default case.