netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Fix selftest compilation on clang 11

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

Date:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 17:36:51 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Fix selftest compilation on clang
 11

On 12/10/20 5:28 PM, KP Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 5:18 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
[...]
>>> It's hard and time-consuming enough to develop these features, I'd
>>> rather keep selftests simpler, more manageable, and less brittle by
>>> not having excessive amount of feature detection and skipped
>>> selftests. I think that's the case for BPF atomics as well, btw (cc'ed
>>> Yonghong and Brendan).
>>>
>>> To alleviate some of the pain of setting up the environment, one way
>>> would be to provide script and/or image to help bring up qemu VM for
>>> easier testing. To that end, KP Singh (cc'ed) was able to re-use
>>> libbpf CI's VM setup and make it easier for local development. I hope
>>> he can share this soon.
> 
> I will clean it up and share it asap and send it as an RFC which
> adds it to tools/testing/selftests/bpf

Thanks!

> We can discuss on the RFC as to where the script would finally end up
> but I think it would save a lot of time/back-and-forth if developers could
> simply check:
> 
>    "Does my change break the BPF CI?"

I'd love to have a Dockerfile under tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ that
replicates the CI env (e.g. busybox, nightly llvm, pahole git, etc) where
we could have quay.io job auto-build this for bpf / bpf-next tree e.g. from a
GH mirror. This would then allow to mount the local kernel tree as a volume
into the container for easy compilation & test access for everyone where we
then don't need all these workarounds like in this patch anymore.

Thanks,
Daniel