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

Message-ID: <CA+G9fYvRJCQn+0t9GHWH+N+Qc7Ggxn++4OB5gV_KCoK17AFHvA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 17:43:11 +0530
From: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>, Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, 
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@...aro.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>, Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>, 
	Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>, 
	Benjamin Copeland <ben.copeland@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: TC: selftests: current timeout (45s) is too low

Hi Matthieu and Pedro,

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 at 02:41, 'Matthieu Baerts' via lkft
<lkft@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

As you know, LKFT is using debian bookworm as rootfs.
We always try to have minimal maintenance and user space tools dependency.
However, I will check with our team to upgrade iproute2 and
tryout testing iproute2-next when validating linux-next.

We need to check our LKFT budget for this additional build and test cost.

Links:
 - https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next/

- Naresh