mbox series

[net-next,v3,00/11] selftests: kselftest_harness: support using xfail

Message ID 20240220192235.2953484-1-kuba@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series selftests: kselftest_harness: support using xfail | expand

Message

Jakub Kicinski Feb. 20, 2024, 7:22 p.m. UTC
Hi!

When running selftests for our subsystem in our CI we'd like all
tests to pass. Currently some tests use SKIP for cases they
expect to fail, because the kselftest_harness limits the return
codes to pass/fail/skip.

Clean up and support the use of the full range of ksft exit codes
under kselftest_harness.

Merge plan is to put it on top of -rc4 and merge into net-next.
That way others should be able to pull the patches without
any networking changes.

v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240216002619.1999225-1-kuba@kernel.org/
 - fix alignment
follow up RFC: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240216004122.2004689-1-kuba@kernel.org/
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240213154416.422739-1-kuba@kernel.org/

Jakub Kicinski (11):
  selftests: kselftest_harness: pass step via shared memory
  selftests: kselftest_harness: use KSFT_* exit codes
  selftests: kselftest_harness: generate test name once
  selftests: kselftest_harness: save full exit code in metadata
  selftests: kselftest_harness: use exit code to store skip
  selftests: kselftest: add ksft_test_result_code(), handling all exit
    codes
  selftests: kselftest_harness: print test name for SKIP
  selftests: kselftest_harness: separate diagnostic message with # in
    ksft_test_result_code()
  selftests: kselftest_harness: let PASS / FAIL provide diagnostic
  selftests: kselftest_harness: support using xfail
  selftests: ip_local_port_range: use XFAIL instead of SKIP

 tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h           |  45 ++++++
 tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h   | 148 ++++++++++++------
 tools/testing/selftests/landlock/base_test.c  |   2 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/landlock/common.h     |  22 +--
 tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c    |   4 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/landlock/net_test.c   |   4 +-
 .../testing/selftests/landlock/ptrace_test.c  |   7 +-
 .../selftests/net/ip_local_port_range.c       |   6 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c             |   2 +-
 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c |   9 +-
 10 files changed, 168 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)

Comments

Paolo Abeni Feb. 21, 2024, 12:03 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, 2024-02-20 at 11:22 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> When running selftests for our subsystem in our CI we'd like all
> tests to pass. Currently some tests use SKIP for cases they
> expect to fail, because the kselftest_harness limits the return
> codes to pass/fail/skip.
> 
> Clean up and support the use of the full range of ksft exit codes
> under kselftest_harness.
> 
> Merge plan is to put it on top of -rc4 and merge into net-next.
> That way others should be able to pull the patches without
> any networking changes.
> 
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240216002619.1999225-1-kuba@kernel.org/
>  - fix alignment
> follow up RFC: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240216004122.2004689-1-kuba@kernel.org/
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240213154416.422739-1-kuba@kernel.org/

@Shuah: it's not clear to me if you prefer to take this series via the
kselftests tree or we can take it via the net-next tree. Could you
please advise?

thanks!

Paolo

p.s. if this was already clarified in the past, I'm sorry: I lost track
of it.
Kees Cook Feb. 23, 2024, 5:48 p.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 01:03:26PM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-02-20 at 11:22 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > When running selftests for our subsystem in our CI we'd like all
> > tests to pass. Currently some tests use SKIP for cases they
> > expect to fail, because the kselftest_harness limits the return
> > codes to pass/fail/skip.
> > 
> > Clean up and support the use of the full range of ksft exit codes
> > under kselftest_harness.
> > 
> > Merge plan is to put it on top of -rc4 and merge into net-next.
> > That way others should be able to pull the patches without
> > any networking changes.
> > 
> > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240216002619.1999225-1-kuba@kernel.org/
> >  - fix alignment
> > follow up RFC: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240216004122.2004689-1-kuba@kernel.org/
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240213154416.422739-1-kuba@kernel.org/
> 
> @Shuah: it's not clear to me if you prefer to take this series via the
> kselftests tree or we can take it via the net-next tree. Could you
> please advise?
> 
> thanks!
> 
> Paolo
> 
> p.s. if this was already clarified in the past, I'm sorry: I lost track
> of it.

Given the urgency for net-dev and the lack of conflicts with other
kselftest changes (AFAICT), I would assume it would be fine to carry
this in net-dev (especially since the merge window fast approaches).

Shuah, any objection?

-Kees
Jakub Kicinski Feb. 24, 2024, 12:02 a.m. UTC | #3
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:22:24 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> When running selftests for our subsystem in our CI we'd like all
> tests to pass. Currently some tests use SKIP for cases they
> expect to fail, because the kselftest_harness limits the return
> codes to pass/fail/skip.
> 
> Clean up and support the use of the full range of ksft exit codes
> under kselftest_harness.
> 
> Merge plan is to put it on top of -rc4 and merge into net-next.
> That way others should be able to pull the patches without
> any networking changes.

Hi Mickaël,

would you be able to take a look at those changes? landlock seems to be
the sole user of the "no_print" functionality in the selftest harness.
If the patches look good I'll create a branch based on Linus's tree
so that anyone interested can pull the changes in..
Mickaël Salaün Feb. 26, 2024, 4:27 p.m. UTC | #4
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 04:02:59PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:22:24 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > When running selftests for our subsystem in our CI we'd like all
> > tests to pass. Currently some tests use SKIP for cases they
> > expect to fail, because the kselftest_harness limits the return
> > codes to pass/fail/skip.
> > 
> > Clean up and support the use of the full range of ksft exit codes
> > under kselftest_harness.
> > 
> > Merge plan is to put it on top of -rc4 and merge into net-next.
> > That way others should be able to pull the patches without
> > any networking changes.
> 
> Hi Mickaël,
> 
> would you be able to take a look at those changes? landlock seems to be
> the sole user of the "no_print" functionality in the selftest harness.
> If the patches look good I'll create a branch based on Linus's tree
> so that anyone interested can pull the changes in..

Hi Jakub,

I missed your patches before this series.  I just sent two patches to
clean things up before you change them.  This should simplify your
patches and improve the overall maintenance.  I'd appreciate if you
rebase on top of them.

Regards,
 Mickaël
Jakub Kicinski Feb. 26, 2024, 4:53 p.m. UTC | #5
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:27:34 +0100 Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > would you be able to take a look at those changes? landlock seems to be
> > the sole user of the "no_print" functionality in the selftest harness.
> > If the patches look good I'll create a branch based on Linus's tree
> > so that anyone interested can pull the changes in..  
> 
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> I missed your patches before this series.  I just sent two patches to
> clean things up before you change them.  This should simplify your
> patches and improve the overall maintenance.  I'd appreciate if you
> rebase on top of them.

Nice! vfork() is a bit scary so I'll give people a couple of days to
review and then post a combined+rebased series.