netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1 4/9] net: devmem: ksft: remove 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aCuSECZWisb5vQUE@mini-arch>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 13:18:24 -0700
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
	Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
	Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	sdf@...ichev.me, ap420073@...il.com, praan@...gle.com,
	shivajikant@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 4/9] net: devmem: ksft: remove ksft_disruptive

On 05/19, Mina Almasry wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:25 AM Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/19, Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > As far as I can tell the ksft_disruptive here is unnecessary. These
> > > tests are largerly independent, and when one test fails, it's nice to
> > > know the results from all the other test cases.
> >
> > We currently don't do anything special for disruptive tests. I'm assuming
> > anything that changes nic configuration is disruptive and was thinking of
> > an option to run all disruptive tests at the end of the run. But so far we
> > haven't had any problem with mixing disruptive and non-disruptive tests,
> > so it's all moot. I'd prefer to keep everything as is for now (or remove
> > this whole disruptive category).
> 
> I've noticed that if all the tests are marked disruptive, and one test
> fails, the others don't run at all, which seems unnecessary. I'd like
> to see if the rx test passed if the tx one failed and vice versa for
> example. Removing the disruptive tag seems to resolve that.

I don't think that's the expected behavior. Disruptive should not
have any effect on other tests if any one fails. Any idea why it happens?