netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v1 2/2] selftests/dpll: add DPLL system integration selftests

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230818140802.063aae1f@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 14:08:02 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Michal Michalik <michal.michalik@...el.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev, jiri@...nulli.us,
 arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com, jonathan.lemon@...il.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, poros@...hat.com, milena.olech@...el.com,
 mschmidt@...hat.com, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, bvanassche@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next v1 2/2] selftests/dpll: add DPLL system
 integration selftests

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:22:09 +0200 Michal Michalik wrote:
> High level flow of DPLL subsystem integration selftests:
> (after running run_dpll_tests.sh or 'make -C tools/testing/selftests')
> 1) check if Python in correct version is installed,
> 2) create temporary Python virtual environment,
> 3) install all the required libraries,
> 4) run the tests,
> 5) do cleanup.

How fragile do you reckon this setup will be?
I mean will it work reliably across distros and various VM setups?
I have tried writing tests based on ynl.py and the C codegen, and
I can't decide whether the python stuff is easy enough to deploy.
Much easier to scp over to the test host a binary based on the 
C code. But typing tests in python is generally quicker...
What are your thoughts?

Thanks for posting the tests!