linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net 4/4] net/udpgso_bench

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAF=yD-JGxrAbv0Cxcn1O20mXY28J1PnpWsHRqcRPO97advm10A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 01:02:20 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Fred Klassen <fklassen@...neta.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 4/4] net/udpgso_bench_tx: audit error queue

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 9:27 PM Fred Klassen <fklassen@...neta.com> wrote:
>
> Willem, this is only my 2nd patch, and my last one was a one liner.
> I’ll try to work through this, but let me know if I am doing a rookie
> mistake (learning curve and all).

Not at all. The fix makes perfect sense.

The test patches 2 and 4 are not fixes, so are better suited to to
net-next. Perhaps the changes to the test can also be more concise,
just the minimal changes needed to demonstrate the bug and fix.

> >>                        tss = (struct my_scm_timestamping *)CMSG_DATA(cmsg);
> >> -                       fprintf(stderr, "tx timestamp = %lu.%09lu\n",
> >> -                               tss->ts[i].tv_sec, tss->ts[i].tv_nsec);
> >> +                       if (tss->ts[i].tv_sec == 0)
> >> +                               stat_tx_ts_errors++;
> >> +                       if (cfg_verbose)
> >> +                               fprintf(stderr, "tx timestamp = %lu.%09lu\n",
> >> +                                       tss->ts[i].tv_sec, tss->ts[i].tv_nsec);
> >
> > changes unrelated to this feature?
>
> I’ll remove. Do you think that I should pull out any messages related
> to “cfg_verbose”?

This change did not seem relevant to the main feature of the patch.