netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests/net: packetdrill: more xfail changes

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: <6e7ace09-581a-4c36-a9d6-f16b734f5335@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:47:23 +0200
From: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, willemb@...gle.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
 andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests/net: packetdrill: more xfail changes

Hi Jakub,

On 10/06/2025 02:00, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Most of the packetdrill tests have not flaked once last week.
> Add the few which did to the XFAIL list.

Thank you for monitoring these tests!

> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> ---
> CC: shuah@...nel.org
> CC: willemb@...gle.com
> CC: matttbe@...nel.org
> CC: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
> 
> Every time I sit down to add more I plan to just XFAIL all of packetdrill
> on slow machines, but then I convince myself otherwise. One last time?

:)

Did some of these packetdrill tests fail only when using a debug kernel?
But yes, I guess we can always say: "maybe one day that will pay off" :)

As long as it is manageable!

> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/ksft_runner.sh | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/ksft_runner.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/ksft_runner.sh
> index ef8b25a606d8..c5b01e1bd4c7 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/ksft_runner.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/ksft_runner.sh
> @@ -39,11 +39,15 @@ if [[ -n "${KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW}" ]]; then
>  	# xfail tests that are known flaky with dbg config, not fixable.
>  	# still run them for coverage (and expect 100% pass without dbg).
>  	declare -ar xfail_list=(
> +		"tcp_blocking_blocking-connect.pkt"
> +		"tcp_blocking_blocking-read.pkt"

Please note that these two tests have "--tolerance_usecs=10000" in their
script. This is overridden by the command line option added above when
KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW is defined: "--tolerance_usecs=14000". But maybe for
these two tests, the tolerance should be even higher than 14000 when
using a debug kernel?

But maybe still better to add them to the XFAIL list and keep the code
as it is.

Acked-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@...nel.org>

>  		"tcp_eor_no-coalesce-retrans.pkt"
>  		"tcp_fast_recovery_prr-ss.*.pkt"
> +		"tcp_sack_sack-route-refresh-ip-tos.pkt"
>  		"tcp_slow_start_slow-start-after-win-update.pkt"
>  		"tcp_timestamping.*.pkt"
>  		"tcp_user_timeout_user-timeout-probe.pkt"
> +		"tcp_zerocopy_cl.*.pkt"
>  		"tcp_zerocopy_epoll_.*.pkt"
>  		"tcp_tcp_info_tcp-info-.*-limited.pkt"
>  	)

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.