netdev - Re: [PATCH] selftests: Skip BPF seftests by default

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: <20201210191103.kfrna27kv3xwnshr@ast-mbp>
Date:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:11:03 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Diaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>,
        Veronika Kabatova <vkabatov@...hat.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: Skip BPF seftests by default

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 06:52:33PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> The BPF selftests have build time dependencies on cutting edge versions
> of tools in the BPF ecosystem including LLVM which are more involved
> to satisfy than more typical requirements like installing a package from
> your distribution.  This causes issues for users looking at kselftest in
> as a whole who find that a default build of kselftest fails and that
> resolving this is time consuming and adds administrative overhead.  The
> fast pace of BPF development and the need for a full BPF stack to do
> substantial development or validation work on the code mean that people
> working directly on it don't see a reasonable way to keep supporting
> older environments without causing problems with the usability of the
> BPF tests in BPF development so these requirements are unlikely to be
> relaxed in the immediate future.
> 
> There is already support for skipping targets so in order to reduce the
> barrier to entry for people interested in kselftest as a whole let's use
> that to skip the BPF tests by default when people work with the top
> level kselftest build system.  Users can still build the BPF selftests
> as part of the wider kselftest build by specifying SKIP_TARGETS,
> including setting an empty SKIP_TARGETS to build everything.  They can
> also continue to build the BPF selftests individually in cases where
> they are specifically focused on BPF.
> 
> This isn't ideal since it means people will need to take special steps
> to build the BPF tests but the dependencies mean that realistically this
> is already the case to some extent and it makes it easier for people to
> pick up and work with the other selftests which is hopefully a net win.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/Makefile | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/Makefile
> index afbab4aeef3c..8a917cb4426a 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/Makefile
> @@ -77,8 +77,10 @@ TARGETS += zram
>  TARGETS_HOTPLUG = cpu-hotplug
>  TARGETS_HOTPLUG += memory-hotplug
>  
> -# User can optionally provide a TARGETS skiplist.
> -SKIP_TARGETS ?=
> +# User can optionally provide a TARGETS skiplist.  By default we skip
> +# BPF since it has cutting edge build time dependencies which require
> +# more effort to install.
> +SKIP_TARGETS ?= bpf

I'm fine with this, but I'd rather make an obvious second step right away
and move selftests/bpf into a different directory.