netdev - Re: [TEST] The no-kvm CI instances going away

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]

Message-ID: <20240206174407.36ca59c4@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:44:07 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@...nel.org>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, MPTCP Upstream
 <mptcp@...ts.linux.dev>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Mat Martineau
 <martineau@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [TEST] The no-kvm CI instances going away

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 12:16:43 +0100 Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> On 06/02/2024 02:41, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > because cloud computing is expensive I'm shutting down the instances
> > which were running without KVM support. We're left with the KVM-enabled
> > instances only (metal) - one normal and one with debug configs enabled.  
> 
> Thank you for the notification!
> 
> It sounds like good news if the non-support of KVM was causing issues :)
> 
> I think we can then no longer ignore the two MPTCP tests that were
> unstable in the previous environment.
> 
> The results from the different tests running on the -dbg instances don't
> look good. Maybe some debug kconfig have a too big impact? [1]

Sorry, I'm behind on the reading the list. FWIW if you want to reach me
quickly make sure the To: doesn't include anyone else. That gets sorted
to a higher prio folder :S

> For MPTCP, one test always hits the selftest timeout [2] when using a
> debug kconfig. I don't know what to do in this case: if we need to set a
> timeout value that is supported by debug environments, the value will be
> so high, it will no longer catch issues "early enough" in "normal"
> environments.
> Or could it be possible to ignore or double the timeout value in this
> debug environment?
> 
> Also, what is the plan with this debug env? It looks like the results
> are not reported to patchwork for the moment. Maybe only "important"
> issues, like kernel warnings, could be reported? Failed tests could be
> reported as "Warning" instead of "Fail"?

Unfortunately I'm really behind on my "real job". I don't have a clear
plan. I think we should scale the timeout by 2x or so, but I haven't
looked how to do that.

I wish the selftest subsystem had some basic guidance.