* Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/26/2014 09:46 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >* Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Stephen Hemminger > >><stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>Per discussion at Kernel Summit. Every new syscall requires > >>>a manual page and test programs. We have had too many new syscalls > >>>that are DOA. > >> > >>There is verifier testsuite that is testing eBPF verifier from userspace > >>via bpf syscall. Also there are multiple examples and libbpf. > >>I think test coverage for bpf syscall is quite substantial already. > > > >This is in tools/bpf/, right? > > No, it contains a BPF JIT disasm, bpf assembler and a debugger, > but the last two are for the 'classic' BPF interface only. > There's a test suite for BPF/eBPF in general under > lib/test_bpf.c, but so far it tests only the current code w/o > eBPF verifier. > > That said, I think Alexei is referring to the examples et al > from the bigger previous proposed patch set. I mean, if all the testing already exists, it should be part of an initial submission and such. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
