netdev - Re: [PATCH net v3] selftests: net: local_termination: annotate the expected failures

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]

Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 09:54:52 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com, liuhangbin@...il.com, shuah@...nel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
	vladimir.oltean@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] selftests: net: local_termination: annotate the
 expected failures

On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 08:25:13AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Vladimir said when adding this test:
> 
>   The bridge driver fares particularly badly [...] mainly because
>   it does not implement IFF_UNICAST_FLT.
> 
> See commit 90b9566aa5cd ("selftests: forwarding: add a test for
> local_termination.sh").
> 
> We don't want to hide the known gaps, but having a test which
> always fails prevents us from catching regressions. Report
> the cases we know may fail as XFAIL.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>

I agree that XFAIL is appropriate for cases like this - the test
is expected to fail and this can act like a TODO.

I also looked over how xfail_on_veth works and this usage seems
correct to me.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>