On 7/31/24 20:40, patchwork-bot+netdevbpf@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hello: > > This series was applied to bpf/bpf-next.git (master) > by Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 08:37:24 +0200 you 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. >> >> [...] > > Here is the summary with links: > - [bpf-next,v4,1/3] selftests/bpf: do not disable /dev/null device access in cgroup dev test > https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/ba6a9018502e > - [bpf-next,v4,2/3] selftests/bpf: convert test_dev_cgroup to test_progs > https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/d83d8230e415 > - [bpf-next,v4,3/3] selftests/bpf: add wrong type test to cgroup dev > https://git.kernel.org/bpf/bpf-next/c/84cdbff4a935 > > You are awesome, thank you! For the record, I am not receiving the notification about my patches being merged (well, I receive it at least thanks to the mailing list, but not as the author). I see that my email address looks pretty broken in the recipient field. Could patchwork automation be confused by "customized" identity ? -- Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
