netdev - Re: 4.19: udpgso_bench_tx: setsockopt zerocopy: Unknown error 524

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:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:58:26 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Fred Klassen <fklassen@...neta.com>
Subject: Re: 4.19: udpgso_bench_tx: setsockopt zerocopy: Unknown error 524

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:39 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 01:27:14PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:15 PM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:59AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > > From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
> > > > Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:37:33 -0400
> > > >
> > > > > Specific to the above test, I can add a check command testing
> > > > > setsockopt SO_ZEROCOPY  return value. AFAIK kselftest has no explicit
> > > > > way to denote "skipped", so this would just return "pass". Sounds a
> > > > > bit fragile, passing success when a feature is absent.
> > > >
> > > > Especially since the feature might be absent because the 'config'
> > > > template forgot to include a necessary Kconfig option.
> > >
> > > That is what the "skip" response is for, don't return "pass" if the
> > > feature just isn't present.  That lets people run tests on systems
> > > without the config option enabled as you say, or on systems without the
> > > needed userspace tools present.
> >
> > I was not aware that kselftest had this feature.
> >
> > But it appears that exit code KSFT_SKIP (4) will achieve this. Okay,
> > I'll send a patch and will keep that in mind for future tests.
>
> Wonderful, thanks for doing that!

One complication: an exit code works for a single test, but here
multiple test variants are run from a single shell script.

I see that in similar such cases that use the test harness
(ksft_test_result_skip) the overall test returns success as long as
all individual cases return either success or skip.

I think it's preferable to return KSFT_SKIP if any of the cases did so
(and none returned an error). I'll do that unless anyone objects.