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: <20200314024855.ugbvrmqkfq7kao75@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:48:55 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@...udflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Fix spurious failures in accept
 due to EAGAIN

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 05:42:36PM +0100, Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> 
> What if we extended test_progs runner to support process-per-test
> execution model? Perhaps as an opt-in for selected tests.

I would love that.
Especially if fork-per-test can make majority of the tests to execute in
parallel. Running test_progs is the biggest time sync for me when I apply
patches. Running them in parallel will help me apply patches faster, so I can
dedicate more time to reviews :)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ