netdev - Re: [PATCH net] selftests: netdevsim: add a config file

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: <9716ed0c1a9f06256d42ed493cda6b7a43cdaee2.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 10:32:19 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, 
	shuah@...nel.org, jiri@...nulli.us, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] selftests: netdevsim: add a config file

On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 10:34 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 18:40:49 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 07:43 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > netdevsim tests aren't very well integrated with kselftest,
> > > which has its advantages and disadvantages.   
> > 
> > Out of sheer ignorance I don't see the advantage?!?
> > 
> > > But regardless
> > > of the intended integration - a config file to know what kernel
> > > to build is very useful, add one.  
> > 
> > With a complete integration we could more easily ask kbuild to generate
> > automatically the kernel config suitable for testing; what about
> > completing such integration?
> 
> My bad, I didn't have the right words at my fingertips so I deleted 
> the explanation of advantages.
> 
> make run_tests doesn't give us the ability to inject logic between
> each test, AFAIU. The runner for netdevsim I typed up checks after
> each test whether the VM has any crashes or things got otherwise
> out of whack. And if so kills the VM and starts a new one to run
> the next test. For make run_tests we can still more or less zero
> in on which test caused an oops or crash, but the next test will 
> try to keep going. 

I see.


> Even if we force kill it after we see a crash
> I didn't see in the docs how to continue testing from a specific
> point.

I think something like the following should do:

cd tools/testing/selftests
make TARGETS="net drivers/net/bonding <...full relevant targets list>" O=<kst_dir> install
cd <kst_dir>

ARGS=""
for t in $(./run_kselftest.sh -l| sed -n '/<test name>/,$p'); do
	ARGS="$ARGS -t $t"
done
./run_kselftest.sh $ARGS # run all tests after <test name>

Probably it would be nice to add to the kselftest runner the ability to
check for kernel oops after each test and ev. stop.

> So all in all, yeah, uniformity is good, the hacky approach kinda
> works. Converting netdevsim to make run_tests is not a priority..

I agree, but also will put the all the above possible improvements in
my wishlist ;)

Cheers,

Paolo