On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 07:50:27PM +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-09-27 at 19:11 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 07:04:57PM +0200, Thomas Haller wrote:
> > >
> > > How can pf.os used?
> >
> > According to code, pf.os file with signatures needs to be placed
> > here:
> >
> > #define OS_SIGNATURES DEFAULT_INCLUDE_PATH "/nftables/osf/pf.os"
> >
> > then, you can start matching on OS type, see 'osf' expression in
> > manpage. Note there is a "unknown" OS type when it does not guess the
> > OS.
>
> Sorry, I don't follow. Testing this seems very cumbersome.
It requires kernel support and the pf.os file in place, yes.
> I suspect, the tests "tests/shell/testcases/sets/typeof_{sets,maps}_0"
> might hit the code. But that test requires kernel support.
This requires kernel support, yes.
> IMO the netfilter projects should require contributors to provide tests
> (as sensible). That is, tests that are simply invoked via `make check`
> and don't require to build special features in the kernel
> (CONFIG_NFT_OSF).
You mean, some way to exercise userspace code without involving the
kernel at all.
> Anyway. Let's hold this patch [2/3] back for now. And patch [1/3] is
> obsolete too.
OK, as you prefer.
> I have patches that would add unit tests to the project (merely as a
> place where more unit tests could be added). I will add a test there.
We have tests/py/ as unit tests, if that might look similar to what
you have in mind? Or are you thinking of more tests/shell/ scripts?
> But that is based on top of "no recursive make", and I'd like to get
> that changed first.
I would like to make a release before such change is applied, build
infrastructure and python support was messy in the previous release.
Then we look into this, OK?
