On Tue Apr 2, 2024 at 2:23 PM EEST, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 01:26:08PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > It'd be more complicated and less readable to do all the stuff without the
> > > > cgroup-tools, esp cgexec. I checked dependency, cgroup-tools only depends
> > > > on libc so I hope this would not cause too much inconvenience.
> > >
> > > As per cgroup-tools, please prove this. It makes the job for more
> > > complicated *for you* and you are making the job more complicated
> > > to every possible person in the planet running any kernel QA.
> > >
> > > I weight the latter more than the former. And it is exactly the
> > > reason why we did custom user space kselftest in the first place.
> > > Let's keep the tradition. All I can say is that kselftest is
> > > unfinished in its current form.
> > >
> > > What is "esp cgexec"?
> >
> > Also in kselftest we don't drive ultimate simplicity, we drive
> > efficient CI/QA. By open coding something like subset of
> > cgroup-tools needed to run the test you also help us later
> > on to backtrack the kernel changes. With cgroups-tools you
> > would have to use strace to get the same info.
>
> FWIW, see also functions in
> tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/cgroup_util.{h,c}.
> They likely cover what you need already -- if the tests are in C.
>
> (I admit that stuff in tools/testing/selftests/cgroup/ is best
> understood with strace.)
Thanks!
My conclusions are that:
1. We probably cannot move the test part of cgroup test itself
given the enclave payload dependency.
2. I think it makes sense to still follow the same pattern as
other cgroups test and re-use cgroup_util.[ch] functionaltiy.
So yeah I guess we need two test programs instead of one.
Something along the lines:
1. main.[ch] -> test_sgx.[ch]
2. introduce test_sgx_cgroup.c
And test_sgx_cgroup.c would be implement similar test as the shell
script and would follow the structure of existing cgroups tests.
>
> HTH,
> Michal
BR, Jarkko
