linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 3/3] selftests: drv-net: Test queue xsk attribute

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250211183706.5b53ee5e@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 18:37:06 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
Cc: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, horms@...nel.org, Andrew Lunn
 <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Alexei
 Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, John Fastabend
 <john.fastabend@...il.com>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "open
 list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, "open
 list:XDP (eXpress Data Path):Keyword:(?:b|_)xdp(?:b|_)"
 <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 3/3] selftests: drv-net: Test queue xsk
 attribute

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:10:52 -0800 Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > I can't comment on NIPA because I have no idea how it works. Maybe
> > there is a kernel with some options enabled and other kernels with
> > various options disabled?  
> 
> Sorry, should've been more clear. My suggestion is to add 
> CONFIG_XDP_SOCKETS to tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/config
> to make your new testcase run in a proper environment with XSKs enabled.

+1 this we need for sure

> > I wonder if that's a separate issue though?
> >
> > In other words: maybe writing the test as I've mentioned above so it
> > works regardless of whether CONFIG_XDP_SOCKETS is set or not is a
> > good idea just on its own?
> > 
> > I'm just not sure if there's some other pattern I should be
> > following other than what I proposed above. I'm hesitant to re-spin
> > until I get feedback on the proposed approach.  
> 
> I'd keep your test as is (fail hard if XSK is not there), but 
> let's see if Paolo/Jakub have any other suggestions.

No strong preference. Stan is right that validating the environment 
is definitely a non-goal for the upstream tests. But if you already
added and tested the checks Joe you can keep them, up to you.