netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/6] Introduce eBPF support for HID devices

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]

Date:   Fri, 25 Feb 2022 17:23:11 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...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>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Dave Marchevsky <davemarchevsky@...com>,
        Joe Stringer <joe@...ium.io>,
        Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@...ux.intel.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 0/6] Introduce eBPF support for HID devices

HID selftests question for now:

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 05:00:53PM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > > I am not entirely clear on which plan I want to have for userspace.
> > > I'd like to have libinput on board, but right now, Peter's stance is
> > > "not in my garden" (and he has good reasons for it).
> > > So my initial plan is to cook and hold the bpf programs in hid-tools,
> > > which is the repo I am using for the regression tests on HID.
> >
> > Why isn't the hid regression tests in the kernel tree also?  That would
> > allow all of the testers out there to test things much easier than
> > having to suck down another test repo (like Linaro and 0-day and
> > kernelci would be forced to do).
> 
> 2 years ago I would have argued that the ease of development of
> gitlab.fd.o was more suited to a fast moving project.
> 
> Now... The changes in the core part of the code don't change much so
> yes, merging it in the kernel might have a lot of benefits outside of
> what you said. The most immediate one is that I could require fixes to
> be provided with a test, and merge them together, without having to
> hold them until Linus releases a new version.

Yes, having a test be required for a fix is a great idea.  Many
subsystems do this already and it helps a lot.

> If nobody complains of having the regression tests in python with
> pytest and some Python 3.6+ features, that is definitely something I
> should look for.

Look at the tools/testing/selftests/ directory today.  We already have
python3 tests in there, and as long as you follow the proper TAP output
format, all should be fine.  The tc-testing python code in the kernel
trees seems to do that and no one has complained yet :)

thanks,

greg k-h