netdev - Re: TC: selftests: current timeout (45s) is too low

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: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 23:11:04 +0200
From: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
To: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>,
 Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
 Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
 Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Anders Roxell
 <anders.roxell@...aro.org>, Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: TC: selftests: current timeout (45s) is too low

Hi Pedro, LKFT team,

@LKFT team: there is question for you below.

On 13/07/2023 22:32, Pedro Tammela wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 16:59, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> On 13/07/2023 19:30, Pedro Tammela wrote:

(...)

>>> Could you also do one final test with the following?
>>> It will increase the total testing wall time but it's ~time~ we let the
>>> bull loose.
>>
>> Just did, it took just over 3 minutes (~3:05), see the log file in [1]
>> (test job in [2] and build job in [3]).
>>
>> Not much longer but 15 more tests failing :)
>> Also, 12 new tests have been skipped:
>>
>>> Tests using the DEV2 variable must define the name of a physical NIC
>>> with the -d option when running tdc.
>> But I guess that's normal when executing tdc.sh.
>>
> 
> Yep, some tests could require physical hardware, so it's ok to skip those.

OK

> As for some of the tests that failed / skipped, it might be because of
> an old iproute2.
> I see that's using bookworm as the rootfs, which has the 6.1 iproute2.
> Generally tdc should run with the matching iproute2 version although
> it's not really required but rather recommended.

Ah yes, it makes sense!

> We do have a 'dependsOn' directive to skip in case of mismatches, so
> perhaps it might be necessary to adjust some of these tests.

Yes, better to skip. Especially because the selftests are supposed to
support old tools and kernel versions:

  https://lore.kernel.org/stable/ZAHLYvOPEYghRcJ1@kroah.com/

> OTOH, is it possible to have a rootfs which runs the tests in tandem
> with iproute2-next?

I don't know :)
But I hope the LKFT team can help answering this question!

@LKFT team: is it possible to run the latest iproute2 version, even the
one from iproute2-next when validating linux-next?

> Thanks for chasing this! I will let the guys know and we will try to fix
> the test failures.

Thank you for your support!

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net