linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 10/10] selftests/bpf: cgroup local storage-based network counters

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 28 Sep 2018 12:40:17 +0200
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 10/10] selftests/bpf: cgroup local
 storage-based network counters

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:37:26AM +0100, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Let's check that bytes counter value is reasonable */
> > > > > +	if (netcnt.bytes < packets * 500 || netcnt.bytes > packets * 1500) {
> > > > 
> > > > since packet count is accurate why byte count would vary ?
> > > 
> > > Tbh I'm not sure if the size of the packet here can vary depending
> > > on the environment. Is there a nice way to get the expected size?
> > 
> > ping packets should be fixed size depending on v4 vs v6.
> > If 'ping -6' is used, it will force ipv6.
> > 
> 
> Are we ok to screw up kselftests on v4-only machines?

we already did. Some of the selftests/bpf use ping -6 already.