netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] selftests/bpf: move sockopt tests under test

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAADnVQLbp72bCkqjV4RdchYre+Jc7buwE==vJZx_o9LTrnHj3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Sep 2019 10:02:02 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] selftests/bpf: move sockopt tests under test_progs

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 9:42 AM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 08:18:08AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 09/06, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:03 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > > <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 09:25:03AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > > Now that test_progs is shaping into more generic test framework,
> > > > > let's convert sockopt tests to it. This requires adding
> > > > > a helper to create and join a cgroup first (test__join_cgroup).
> > > > > Since we already hijack stdout/stderr that shouldn't be
> > > > > a problem (cgroup helpers log to stderr).
> > > > >
> > > > > The rest of the patches just move sockopt tests files under prog_tests/
> > > > > and do the required small adjustments.
> > > >
> > > > Looks good. Thank you for working on it.
> > > > Could you de-verbose setsockopt test a bit?
> > > > #23/32 setsockopt: deny write ctx->retval:OK
> > > > #23/33 setsockopt: deny read ctx->retval:OK
> > > > #23/34 setsockopt: deny writing to ctx->optval:OK
> > > > #23/35 setsockopt: deny writing to ctx->optval_end:OK
> > > > #23/36 setsockopt: allow IP_TOS <= 128:OK
> > > > #23/37 setsockopt: deny IP_TOS > 128:OK
> > > > 37 subtests is a bit too much spam.
> > >
> > > If we merged test_btf into test_progs, we'd have >150 subtests, which
> > > would be pretty verbose as well. But the benefit of subtest is that
> > > you can run just that sub-test and debug/verify just it, without all
> > > the rest stuff.
> > >
> > > So I'm wondering, if too many lines of default output is the only
> > > problem, should we just not output per-subtest line by default?
> > Ack, we can output per-subtest line if it fails so it's easy to re-run;
> > otherwise, hiding by default sounds good. I'll prepare a v3 sometime
> > today; Alexei, let us know if you disagree.
>
> If the subtests are runnable and useful individually it's good to have
> them as subtests.
> I think in the above I misread them as a sequence of sub-checks that needs
> to happen before actual test result.
> Looking at test_sockopt.c I see that they're separate tests,
> so yeah keep them.
> No need to hide by default or extra flags.
> Let me look at v1 and v2 again...

I applied v1 set. Thanks!