On 7/27/24 00:49, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > On 07/25, Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) wrote: >> Hello, >> this small series aims to integrate test_dev_cgroup in test_progs so it >> could be run automatically in CI. The new version brings a few differences >> with the current one: >> - test now uses directly syscalls instead of wrapping commandline tools >> into system() calls >> - test_progs manipulates /dev/null (eg: redirecting test logs into it), so >> disabling access to it in the bpf program confuses the tests. To fix this, >> the first commit modifies the bpf program to allow access to char devices >> 1:3 (/dev/null), and disable access to char devices 1:5 (/dev/zero) >> - once test is converted, add a small subtest to also check for device type >> interpretation (char or block) >> - paths used in mknod tests are now in /dev instead of /tmp: due to the CI >> runner organisation and mountpoints manipulations, trying to create nodes >> in /tmp leads to errors unrelated to the test (ie, mknod calls refused by >> kernel, not the bpf program). I don't understand exactly the root cause >> at the deepest point (all I see in CI is an -ENXIO error on mknod when trying to >> create the node in tmp, and I can not make sense out of it neither >> replicate it locally), so I would gladly take inputs from anyone more >> educated than me about this. >> [...] > Going forward, can you pls use [PATCH bpf-next] as a subject (or bpf when > targeting bpf tree)? I'm not sure whether patchworks picks up > plain [PATCH] messages.. Yes, my bad, I realized some time after sending that I may have missed some proper patch prefix. I have just checked on patchwork and see this series and the one I have sent before, so I guess there is no need to resend those, but I'll make sure to apply the relevant prefix for next series. Thanks, Alexis -- Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
