netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/10] selftests/xsx: test for huge pages only once

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: <ZGN/zTd74uV2xQwl@boxer>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 15:06:21 +0200
From: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>
To: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>
CC: <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>, <bjorn@...nel.org>, <ast@...nel.org>,
	<daniel@...earbox.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
	<yhs@...com>, <andrii@...nel.org>, <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, <song@...nel.org>,
	<john.fastabend@...il.com>, <kpsingh@...nel.org>, <sdf@...gle.com>,
	<haoluo@...gle.com>, <jolsa@...nel.org>, <tirthendu.sarkar@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 07/10] selftests/xsx: test for huge pages
 only once

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 02:58:26PM +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 12:31:06PM +0200, Magnus Karlsson wrote:
> > From: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>
> > 
> > Test for hugepages only once at the beginning of the execution of the
> > whole test suite, instead of before each test that needs huge
> > pages. These are the tests that use unaligned mode. As more unaligned
> > tests will be added, so the current system just does not scale.
> > 
> > With this change, there are now three possible outcomes of a test run:
> > fail, pass, or skip. To simplify the handling of this, the function
> > testapp_validate_traffic() now returns this value to the main loop. As
> > this function is used by nearly all tests, it meant a small change to
> > most of them.
> 
> I don't get the need for that change. Why couldn't we just store the
> retval to test_spec and then check it in run_pkt_test() just like we check
> test->fail currently? Am i missing something?

also typo in subject - s/xsx/xsk

> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.c | 186 +++++++++++------------
> >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/xskxceiver.h |   2 +
> >  2 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-)
> >