netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/4] selftests: tc-testing: extend the "skip" property

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

Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:05:33 -0300
From:   Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>
To:     Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@....org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/4] selftests: tc-testing: extend the "skip"
 property

On 27/03/2023 07:02, Davide Caratti wrote:
> hello Pedro, thanks for looking at this!
> 
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:01:53AM -0300, Pedro Tammela wrote:
>> On 23/03/2023 10:34, Davide Caratti wrote:
>>> currently, users can skip individual test cases by means of writing
>>>
>>>     "skip": "yes"
>>>
>>> in the scenario file. Extend this functionality by allowing the execution
>>> of a command, written in the "skip" property for a specific test case. If
>>> such property is present, tdc executes that command and skips the test if
>>> the return value is non-zero.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
>>
>>
>> I saw the use case in patch 3 but I didn't understand how it can happen.
>> Shouldn't iproute2 at least match the kernel version? I know it's not a hard
>> requirement for 99% of use cases, but when running tdc I would argue it's
>> the minimum expected.
> 
> sure, but there are distributions where patches are backported: on these
> ones, the kernel/iproute version is not so meaningful.

Oh, of course!

> Instead of posting kselftest after the iproute2 support code is merged, I
> think it's preferrable to just skip those kselftests that can't run because
> they lack userspace bits; and by the way I see we are already taking this
> approach elsewhere [1] [2].
> 

I see, so it makes distribution lives easier.
Wouldn't it be more clear then to have a separate property called 
"depends_on" or something similar?
If someone adds a new feature that depends on iproute2, then it would be 
more natural to just add a "depends_on" property.

Pedro