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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 17:55:05 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <>,
	Jakub Kicinski <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>, Paolo Abeni <>,
	Shuah Khan <>, David Ahern <>,,
	Po-Hsu Lin <>,
	Guillaume Nault <>
Subject: [Discuss] Seeking advice on net selftests netns naming method


Good day! Following Guillaume's suggestion, I've been working on updating all
net self-tests to run in their respective netns. This modification allows us
to execute all tests in parallel, potentially saving a significant amount of
test time.

However, I've encountered a challenge while making these modifications. The
net selftest folder contains around 80 tests (excluding the forwarding test),
with some tests using common netns names and others using self-defined names.
I've considered two methods to address this issue:

One approach is to retain the original names but append a unique suffix using
$(mktemp -u XXXXXX). While this is a straightforward solution, it may not
prevent future tests from using common names.

Another option is to establish a general netns lib. Similar to the NUM_NETIFS
variable in the forwarding test, we could introduce a variable like NUM_NS.
This variable would define the number of netns instances, and all tests would
use the netns lib to set up and clean up netns accordingly. However, this
approach might complicate test debugging, especially for tests like, which relies on clear and visually netns names
(e.g., me/peer/remote).

I'm reaching out to gather your insights on this matter. Do you have any
suggestions or preferences regarding the two proposed methods, or do you have
an alternative solution in mind?

Your expertise in this area would be greatly appreciated.

Best Regards

Powered by blists - more mailing lists