netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] selftests: openvswitch: Address some flakes in the CI environment

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: <f7th6d4ne3r.fsf@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 09:49:12 -0400
From: Aaron Conole <aconole@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,  dev@...nvswitch.org,
  linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  Pravin B
 Shelar <pshelar@....org>,  "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,  Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,  Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,  Shuah
 Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,  Adrián Moreno
 <amorenoz@...hat.com>,  Simon
 Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] selftests: openvswitch: Address some
 flakes in the CI environment

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:

> On Tue,  2 Jul 2024 09:28:27 -0400 Aaron Conole wrote:
>> These patches aim to make using the openvswitch testsuite more reliable.
>> These should address the major sources of flakiness in the openvswitch
>> test suite allowing the CI infrastructure to exercise the openvswitch
>> module for patch series.  There should be no change for users who simply
>> run the tests (except that patch 3/3 does make some of the debugging a bit
>> easier by making some output more verbose).
>
> Hi Aaron!
>
> The results look solid on normal builds now, but with a debug kernel
> the test is failing consistently:
>
> https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/contest.html?executor=vmksft-net-dbg&test=openvswitch-sh

Yes - it shows a test case issue with the upcall and psample tests.

Adrian and I discussed the correct approach would be using a wait_for
instead of just sleeping, because it seems the dbg environment might be
too racy.  I think he is working on a follow up to submit after the
psample work gets merged - we were hoping not to hold that patch series
up with more potential conflicts or merge issues if that's okay.