netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 14/14] selftests: forwarding: Add a test for verifying VXLAN MC underlay

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: <ccaf0784-d7a3-41e2-b3e0-65b9022f15a6@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 19:28:27 +0200
From: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
 Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, mlxsw@...dia.com,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 14/14] selftests: forwarding: Add a test for
 verifying VXLAN MC underlay

Hi Jakub, Petr,

On 13/06/2025 18:57, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 22:10:48 +0200 Petr Machata wrote:
>> Add tests for MC-routing underlay VXLAN traffic.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Notes:
>>     v2:
>>     - Adjust as per shellcheck citations
> 
> Noob question - would we also be able to squash the unreachable code
> warnings if we declared ALL_TESTS as an array instead of a string?
> IDK if there's any trick we could use to make shellcheck stop
> complaining. Not blocking the series, obviously.
> 
> CC Matthieu, I presume you may have already investigated this :)

Thank you for the Cc. Yes indeed, I already had this case.

I don't think declaring ALL_TESTS as an array would help for this case
-- even if it looks clearer than a long string -- because I think
shellcheck will simply check if all the different functions are called
directly. As mentioned in Shellcheck wiki [1]: "ShellCheck may
incorrectly believe that code is unreachable if it's invoked by variable
name or in a trap. In such a case, please Ignore the message".

That what we did with MPTCP, see the top of the mptcp_join.sh file for
example [2], where we have:

> # ShellCheck incorrectly believes that most of the code here is unreachable
> # because it's invoked by variable name, see how the "tests" array is used
> #shellcheck disable=SC2317
If you add this at the top of your new file, followed by an empty line,
shellcheck will ignore this issue for the whole file.

Note: regarding the other issue you have:

> In vxlan_bridge_1q_mc_ul.sh line 766:
> setup_wait
> ^--------^ SC2119 (info): Use setup_wait "$@" if function's $1 should mean script's $1.

I guess you can also ignore it, or use "" as argument. If you ignore it
-- which looks cleaner -- I think it is always good to add a comment, e.g.

> # shellcheck disable=SC2119  # arguments are optional, not needed here.
> setup_wait

[1] https://www.shellcheck.net/wiki/SC2317
[2]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/mptcp_join.sh#n9

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