Re: [PATCH 6.1 00/42] 6.1.15-rc1 review

[Matthieu Baerts]

Hi Greg,

3 Mar 2023 11:26:46 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 10:47:33AM +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> Hi Greg, Naresh, Paolo,
>>
>> Thank you for the new version and for having reported the issue and running MPTCP selftests!
>>
>> 3 Mar 2023 10:23:06 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 02:34:05PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 at 13:34, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 2023-03-03 at 01:32 +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>> I read the above as you are running self-tests from 6.2.1 on top of an
>>>>> older (6.1) kernel. Is that correct?
>>>>
>>>> correct.
>>>>
>>>>> If so failures are expected;
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the test be able to know that "new features" are not present
>>> and properly skip the test for when that happens?  Otherwise this feels
>>> like a problem going forward as no one will know if this feature can be
>>> used or not (assuming it is a new feature and not just a functional
>>> change.)
>>
>> All MPTCP selftests are designed to run on the same kernel version
>> they are attached to. This allows us to do more checks knowing they
>> are not supposed to fail on newer kernel versions and not being
>> skipped if there is an error when trying to use the new feature. If
>> there are fixes, we make sure the stable team is Cc'ed. If there are
>> API changes, it would be visible because we would need to adapt
>> existing selftests.
>
> "Features" are not usually limited to specific kernel versions (think
> about the mess that "enterprise" kernels create by backports).  And if
> they are, running a userspace test should be able to detect if the
> feature is present or not by the error returned to it, right?  If not,
> then the feature is mis-designed.

Thank you for the explanation. (I didn't know these tests had to support "enterprise" kernels.)

For features where the userspace explicitly asks to use them, that's easy. For events that are only created from a specific kernel version, that will be harder but it is maybe a sign that something else is missing on our side :)

>> That's how we thought we should design MPTCP selftests. Maybe we need to change this design?
>
> Yes, please "skip" tests for features that are just not present, do not
> fail them.

It might take a bit of time but we will look at that. I think we don't even check MPTCP is available before starting the first test, we just assume it is there if someone explicitly starts these tests :-)

>> Is it a common practice to run selftests' latest version on older kernels?
>
> Yes.

Thank you, I didn't know (and I don't know if it is well known by kernel devs and maintainers).

Cheers,
Matt
--
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net