netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Bluetooth: Add new MGMT interface for advertising add

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: <CAP2xMbsJ6EQYbJvS=59Dpj83sugFGaP98Mq-1SgxrJ+aSqd4pA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Nov 2020 09:42:07 -0800
From:   Daniel Winkler <danielwinkler@...gle.com>
To:     Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>
Cc:     Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        BlueZ <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        chromeos-bluetooth-upstreaming 
        <chromeos-bluetooth-upstreaming@...omium.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Bluetooth: Add new MGMT interface for advertising add

Hello Luiz,

Thank you for the information. It is good to know that this tool is
actively used and that there is a way to skip existing flaky tests.
Just for clarification, is this a requirement to land the kernel
changes, i.e. should I prioritize adding these tests immediately to
move the process forward? Or can we land the changes based on the
testing I have already done and I'll work on these tests in parallel?

Thanks,
Daniel

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:04 PM Luiz Augusto von Dentz
<luiz.dentz@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 3:25 PM Daniel Winkler <danielwinkler@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Luiz,
> >
> > Thank you for the feedback regarding mgmt-tester. I intended to use
> > the tool, but found that it had a very high rate of test failure even
> > before I started adding new tests. If you have a strong preference for
> > its use, I can look into it again but it may take some time. These
> > changes were tested with manual and automated functional testing on
> > our end.
> >
> > Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> Total: 406, Passed: 358 (88.2%), Failed: 43, Not Run: 5
>
> Looks like there are some 43 tests failing, we will need to fix these
> but it should prevent us to add new ones as well, you can use -p to
> filter what tests to run if you want to avoid these for now.