linux-kernel - Re: [RFC net 0/1] Fix netdevim to correctly mark NAPI IDs

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]

Message-ID: <Z-sX6cNBb-mFMhBx@LQ3V64L9R2>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 15:32:09 -0700
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net 0/1] Fix netdevim to correctly mark NAPI IDs

On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 01:36:15PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:00:28 +0000 Joe Damato wrote:
> > If this net-next material: I'll wait until it reopens and send this
> > patch + an update to busy_poller.c as described above.
> 
> Let's stick to net-next. 

Sure, sounds good. I'll drop the fixes tag when I resend when
net-next is open, of course.

> Would it be possible / make sense to convert the test to Python
> and move it to drivers/net ?

Hmm. We could; I think originally the busy_poller.c test was added
because it was requested by Paolo for IRQ suspension and netdevsim
was the only option that I could find that supported NAPI IDs at the
time.

busy_poller.c itself seems more like a selftests/net thing since
it's testing some functionality of the core networking code.

Maybe mixing the napi_id != 0 test into busy_poller.c is the wrong
way to go at a higher level. Maybe there should be a test for
netdevsim itself that checks napi_id != 0 and that test would make
more sense under drivers/net vs mixing a check into busy_poller.c?