netdev - Re: [selftest] udpgro test report fail but passed

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e12744d9-00c6-4c56-955e-cfdb44cd7066@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:37:20 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [selftest] udpgro test report fail but passed

On 8/13/24 11:57, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:24:34AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> It's just pour integration between the script and the selftests harness.
>>
>> The script should capture the pid of the background UDP receiver, wait poll
>> for a bit for such process termination after that the sender completes, then
>> send a termination signal, capture the receiver exit code and use it to emit
>> the success/fail message and update the script return code.
> 
> If that's the case, we shouldn't echo the result as the return value will
> always be 0. Is the following change you want? e.g.

The below example captures a slightly more complex case, where there 2 
sender/receiver pair.
> 
> @@ -115,16 +113,14 @@ run_one_2sock() {
>   	cfg_veth
>   
>   	ip netns exec "${PEER_NS}" ./udpgso_bench_rx -C 1000 -R 10 ${rx_args} -p 12345 &
> -	ip netns exec "${PEER_NS}" ./udpgso_bench_rx -C 2000 -R 10 ${rx_args} && \
> -		echo "ok" || \
> -		echo "failed" &
> +	ip netns exec "${PEER_NS}" ./udpgso_bench_rx -C 2000 -R 10 ${rx_args} &
>   
>   	wait_local_port_listen "${PEER_NS}" 12345 udp
>   	./udpgso_bench_tx ${tx_args} -p 12345
>   	wait_local_port_listen "${PEER_NS}" 8000 udp
>   	./udpgso_bench_tx ${tx_args}
> -	ret=$?
>   	wait $(jobs -p)
> +	ret=$?
>   	return $ret
>   }
> 
>>
>> Could you please have a shot at the above?

I think it will not be enough. We need to check the exit code of all the 
involved processes (2 senders, 2 receivers)

Thanks!

Paolo