netdev - Re: [PATCH net v4] selftests/net: big_tcp: return xfail on slow machines

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: <20250325133850.1d503348@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:38:50 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Pablo Martin Medrano <pablmart@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon
 Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Petr Machata
 <petrm@...dia.com>, Filippo Storniolo <fstornio@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4] selftests/net: big_tcp: return xfail on slow
 machines

On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 19:54:02 +0100 Pablo Martin Medrano wrote:
> After debugging the following output for big_tcp.sh on a board:
> 
> CLI GSO | GW GRO | GW GSO | SER GRO
> on        on       on       on      : [PASS]
> on        off      on       off     : [PASS]
> off       on       on       on      : [FAIL_on_link1]
> on        on       off      on      : [FAIL_on_link1]
> 
> Davide Caratti found that by default the test duration 1s is too short
> in slow systems to reach the correct cwd size necessary for tcp/ip to
> generate at least one packet bigger than 65536 (matching the iptables
> match on length rule the test evaluates)
> 
> This skips (with xfail) the aforementioned failing combinations when
> KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW is set. For that the test has been modified to use
> facilities from net/lib.sh.
> 
> The new output for the test will look like this (example with a forced
> XFAIL)

Sorry I was AFK for 2 weeks, what happened to my suggestions of using
byte count rather than time ?