netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2 v3 1/2] tc: u32: add support for json output

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: <78ac271a-7d00-7526-54b5-2aabb5b3a3ba@mojatatu.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jan 2022 07:54:23 -0500
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Andrea Claudi <aclaudi@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Wen Liang <wenliang@...hat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Victor Nogueira <victor@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 v3 1/2] tc: u32: add support for json output

On 2022-01-26 10:50, David Ahern wrote:
> On 1/26/22 6:52 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>>
>> Makes sense in particular if we have formal output format like json.
>> If this breaks tdc it would be worth to fix tdc (and not be backward
>> compatible)
>>
>> So: Since none of the tc maintainers was Cced in this thread, can we
>> please impose a rule where any changes to tc subdir needs to have tdc
>> tests run (and hopefully whoever is making the change will be gracious
>> to contribute an additional testcase)?
> 
> I can try to remember to run tdc tests for tc patches. I looked into it
> a few days ago and seems straightforward to run tdc.sh.

Note tdc.sh is meant for the bot. It skips a lot things per Davide's
comment that he was worried the robot will end up spending too many
cycles. Good source at the moment is the README.

> The output of
> those tests could be simplified - when all is good you get the one line
> summary of the test name with PASS/FAIL with an option to run in verbose
> mode to get the details of failures. As it is, the person running the
> tests has to wade through a lot of output.
> 

We are going to put some cycles improving things. Your input is useful.

>> Do you need a patch for that in some documentation?
>>
> 
> How about adding some comments to README.devel?


Sure - but it wont be sufficient IMO.
Best course of action is for the maintainers to remind people to run
tests.

BTW: We found out that Stephen's patches still break the latest -next.

cheers,
jamal