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: <20201211124618.GA4929@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 11 Dec 2020 12:46:18 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        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 04:41:33PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 12/10/20 12:11 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

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

> Why is this an obvious second step? If people want to run bpf, they can
> build and run. How does moving it out of selftests directory help? It
> would become harder on users that want to run the test.

> I don't support moving bpf out of selftests directory in the interest
> of Linux kernel quality and validation.

> Let's think big picture and kernel community as a whole.

Yeah, I don't see an obvious motivation for doing that either - what
problem does it solve?  For people running suites it's helpful to have
fewer testsuites and test infrastructures to integrate with.  The work
needed for the dependencies is going to be the same no matter where we
put the tests and moving out of the shared infrastructure creates some
additional work.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)