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]

Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 16:26:03 +0200
From: Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...il.com>
To: Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.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, 16 May 2023 at 15:07, Maciej Fijalkowski
<maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com> wrote:
>
> 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

Ouch, will fix. Thanks!

> >
> > >
> > > 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(-)
> > >