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: <20240209111730.5e67d9ac@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 11:17:30 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Shuah Khan
 <shuah@...nel.org>, Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] selftests: net: wait for receiver startup in
 so_txtime.sh

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 17:45:28 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> But I'm pretty sure that even with that there will be sporadic failures
> in slow enough environments.
> 
> When the host-induced jitter/delay is high enough, packets are dropped
> and there are functional failures. I'm wondering if we should skip this
> test entirely when KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW=yes.

By skip do you mean the same approach as to the gro test?
Ignore errors? Because keeping the code coverage for KASAN etc.
would still be good (stating the obvious, sorry).

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ