netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] tc-testing: Restore original behaviour for namespaces in tdc

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: <0bd19bf9-f499-dc9f-1b26-ee0a075391ac@6wind.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:52:27 +0200
From:   Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:     Lucas Bates <lucasb@...atatu.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, kernel@...atatu.com,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>,
        Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 1/1] tc-testing: Restore original behaviour
 for namespaces in tdc

Le 17/06/2019 à 04:04, Lucas Bates a écrit :
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:37 AM Nicolas Dichtel
> <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> wrote:
[snip]
> The tests that make use of DEV2 are intended to be run with a physical
> NIC.  This feature was originally submitted by Chris Mi from Mellanox
> back in 2017 (commit 31c2611b) to reproduce a kernel panic, with d052
> being the first test case submitted.
Ok.

> 
> Originally they were silently skipped, but once I added TdcResults.py
> this changed so they would be tracked and reported as skipped.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> For me, explicitly telling the user that a test was skipped, and /why/
> it was skipped, is far better than excluding the test from the
> results: I don't want to waste someone's time with troubleshooting the
> script if they're expecting to see results for those tests when
> running tdc and nothing appears, or worse yet, stop using it because
> they think it doesn't work properly.
> 
> I do believe the skip message should be improved so it better
> indicates why those tests are being skipped.  And the '-d' feature
> should be documented.  How do these changes sound?
If the error message is clear enough, I agree with you. The skip message should
not feel like an error message ;-)


Thank you,
Nicolas