netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests: pmtu: Simplify cleanup and namespace names

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: <20190523095817.45ca9cae@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 09:58:17 +0200
From:   Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests: pmtu: Simplify cleanup and
 namespace names

Hi David,

On Wed, 22 May 2019 12:11:06 -0700
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org> wrote:

> From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
> 
> The point of the pause-on-fail argument is to leave the setup as is after
> a test fails to allow a user to debug why it failed. Move the cleanup
> after posting the result to the user to make it so.
> 
> Random names for the namespaces are not user friendly when trying to
> debug a failure. Make them simpler and more direct for the tests. Run
> cleanup at the beginning to ensure they are cleaned up if they already
> exist.

The reasons for picking per-instance unique names were:

- one can run multiple instances of the script in parallel. I
  couldn't trigger any bug this way *so far*, though

- cleanup might fail because of e.g. device reference count leaks (this
  happened quite frequently in the past), which are anyway visible in
  kernel logs. Unique names avoid the need to reboot

Sure, it's a trade-off with usability, and I also see the value of
having fixed names, so I'm fine with this too. I just wanted to make
sure you considered these points.

By the way, the comment to nsname() (that I would keep, it's still
somewhat convenient) is now inconsistent.

-- 
Stefano