Hello Alan, On 7/29/24 18:59, Alan Maguire wrote: > On 29/07/2024 09:20, Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) wrote: >> test_dev_cgroup currently loads a small bpf program allowing any access on >> urandom and zero devices, disabling access to any other device. It makes >> migrating this test to test_progs impossible, since this one manipulates >> extensively /dev/null. >> >> Allow /dev/null manipulation in dev_cgroup program to make its usage in >> test_progs framework possible. Update test_dev_cgroup.c as well to match >> this change while it has not been removed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexis Lothoré (eBPF Foundation) <alexis.lothore@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/dev_cgroup.c | 4 ++-- >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_dev_cgroup.c | 18 +++++++++--------- > > Not a big deal, but I found it a bit confusing that this file was > modified then deleted in patch 2. Would it work having patch 1 stop > building the standalone test/remove it and .gitignore entry, patch 2 > updating progs/dev_cgroup.c to allow /dev/zero, /dev/urandom access, > patch 3 add cgroup_dev.c test support, and patch 4 add the device type > subtest? Or are there issues with doing things that way? Thanks! I've done this to make sure that at any point in the git history, there is one working test for the targeted feature, either the old or the new one. I've done it this way because the old test also helped me validate the new one while developing it, but also because if at some point there is a (major) issue with the new test, reverting only the relevant commit brings back the old test while disabling the new one. But maybe this concern is not worth the trouble (especially since the old tests are not run automatically) ? If that's indeed the case, I can do it the way you are suggesting :) Thanks, Alexis -- Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
