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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:37:24 +0200
From:   Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:     Lucas Bates <lucasb@...atatu.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, jhs@...atatu.com, kernel@...atatu.com,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, mleitner@...hat.com,
        vladbu@...lanox.com, dcaratti@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] tc-testing: Restore original behaviour
 for namespaces in tdc

Le 05/06/2019 à 23:08, Lucas Bates a écrit :
> Apologies for the delay in getting this out. I've been busy
> with other things and this change was a little trickier than
> I expected.
> 
> This patch restores the original behaviour for tdc prior to the
> introduction of the plugin system, where the network namespace
> functionality was split from the main script.
> 
> It introduces the concept of required plugins for testcases,
> and will automatically load any plugin that isn't already
> enabled when said plugin is required by even one testcase.
> 
> Additionally, the -n option for the nsPlugin is deprecated
> so the default action is to make use of the namespaces.
> Instead, we introduce -N to not use them, but still create
> the veth pair.
> 
> Comments welcome!
Thanks for the follow up. I successfully tested your patch, it fixes the netns case.

Note that there is still a bunch of test that fails or are skipped after your
patch, for example:
ok 431 e41d - Add 1M flower filters with 10 parallel tc instances # skipped -
Not executed because DEV2 is not defined


The message is not really explicit, you have to dig into the code to understand
that '-d <dev>' is needed.
Is it not possible to use a dummy interface by default?

>From my point of view, if all tests are not successful by default, it scares
users and prevent them to use those tests suite to validate their patches.


Regards,
Nicolas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ