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: <Z6yiciovTsNpIAJA@LQ3V64L9R2>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 05:30:26 -0800
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.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, Feb 11, 2025 at 06:37:06PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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

OK will do.
 
> > > 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.

OK. I guess I'll just leave them? They are as described earlier in
the thread.