netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] selftests: drv-net-hw: add test for memory allocation failures with page pool

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: <662fb69baa4b7_2e6aae2947c@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 11:02:51 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 edumazet@...gle.com, 
 pabeni@...hat.com, 
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/6] selftests: drv-net-hw: add test for memory
 allocation failures with page pool

Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 09:49:28 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Eventually probably want a more generic fault injection class.
> > 
> > And for both fault injection and background traffic the with object
> > construct to ensure cleanup in all cases.
> > 
> > Maybe even the same for ethtool, as ip and ethtool config changes that
> > need to be reverted to original state will be common.
> 
> Agreed, the nice way of wrapping all that has not revealed itself to me
> yet. When we discussed it with Petr a while back he was suggesting
> "with", and I was thinking of creating an object with test as the
> parent. The with is nicer but here we'd end up doing:
> 
> 	with a():
> 		# some code
> 		with b():
> 			# more code
> 				with c():
> 					# check traffic
> 
> which offends my sensibilities.
> 
> There are many options, hard to say which one is best without having 
> a bunch of tests to convert as a litmus test :S So I stuck to "finally"

Entirely reasonable.

Btw, I have a preliminary tools/testing/selftests/net/csum test on
top of this series.

The only interesting points so far are the use of deploy (which I
assume you have on some internal patch already) and that with bkg
would not fail the test if the background process exits with error.