netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC] selftests/net: integrate packetdrill with ksft

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: <66d9250d17916_17661d29484@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2024 23:27:09 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 davem@...emloft.net, 
 edumazet@...gle.com, 
 ncardwell@...gle.com, 
 shuah@...nel.org, 
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
 fw@...len.de, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, 
 "Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)" <matttbe@...nel.org>, 
 martineau@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC] selftests/net: integrate packetdrill with
 ksft

Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 14:47:43 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > We have directories in net/lib, and it's a target, and it works, no?  
> > 
> > net/lib is not a TARGET in tools/testing/selftests/Makefile. Its
> > Makefile only generates dependencies for other targets: TEST_FILES,
> > TEST_GEN_FILES and TEST_INCLUDES.
> 
> Oh right, TEST_FILES vs TEST_INCLUDES :(
> 
> Looks like only x86 does some weird stuff and prepends $(OUTPUT) to all
> test names. Otherwise the only TEST_NAME with a / in it is
> 
> x86_64/nx_huge_pages_test.sh
> 
> But then again maybe we should give up on the idea of using directories?
> Use some separator like --, I mean:
> 
> mv packetdrill/tcp/inq/client.pkt packetdrill/tcp--inq--client.pkt
> 
> Assuming we're moving forward with the interpreter idea we don't need
> directories for multi-threading, just for organization. Which perhaps
> isn't worth the time investment? Given that we'd mostly interact with
> these tests via UI which will flatten it all back?

Okay, went with the simplest approach for v1: indeed just flattening
the space like this.

Only after implementing TEST_PROGS_RECURSE and PRESERVE_TEST_DIRS.
Both make kselftest more complex and in subtle ways that could break
existing tests.

Also simplified the interpreter mechanism. Instead of requiring an
environment variable, look for a specific executable in the TARGET
dir. This will make the test just work when someone does a manual run.

All is tentative and up for revision, of course.