From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jurgens To: Paul Moore , Stephen Smalley CC: "selinux@tycho.nsa.gov" , Yevgeny Petrilin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] selinux-testsuite: Infiniband endport tests Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:44:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1496162091-129822-1-git-send-email-danielj@mellanox.com> <1496162091-129822-3-git-send-email-danielj@mellanox.com> <1496164182.2164.12.camel@tycho.nsa.gov> <1496166732.2164.18.camel@tycho.nsa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: "Security-Enhanced Linux \(SELinux\) mailing list" List-Post: List-Help: On 6/5/2017 5:34 PM, Daniel Jurgens wrote: > On 6/5/2017 5:13 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >>> On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 17:40 +0000, Daniel Jurgens wrote: >>>> On 5/30/2017 12:05 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 19:34 +0300, Dan Jurgens wrote: >>>>>> From: Daniel Jurgens >>>>>> >>>>>> New tests for Infiniband endports. Most users do not have >>>>>> infiniband >>>>>> hardware, and if they do the device names can vary. There is a >>>>>> configuration file for enabling the tests and setting environment >>>>>> specific configurations. If the tests are disabled they always >>>>>> show >>>>>> as >>>>>> passed. >>>>>> >>>>>> A special test application was unnecessary, a standard diagnostic >>>>>> application is used instead. This required a change to the make >>>>>> file >>>>>> to avoid trying to build an application in the new subdir. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Jurgens >> ... >> >>> I wouldn't bother re-spinning unless Paul has other comments. >> Nothing worthy of a respin. >> >> Daniel, have you run these tests against the kernel, userspace, and >> policy code that has been merged? It would be nice to have a sanity >> check that something didn't break while we were merging everything. >> >> [SIDE NOTE: This afternoon I noticed what I think may be a problem >> with my COPR kernel builds that affects the test suite, so YMMY at the >> moment.] >> > I ran them against the merged kernel and selinux code. But I used the same policy RPMs that I had been using, I didn't try to rebuild the RPMs against the new refpolicy. > Are these tests good to go? I haven't gotten any additional comments since v2.