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

Message-ID: <20250331163917.4204f85d@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:39:17 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
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, 31 Mar 2025 15:32:09 -0700 Joe Damato wrote:
> > 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.

I guess in my mind busy polling is tied to having IRQ-capable device.
Even if bulk of the logic resides in the core.

> 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?

Up to you. The patch make me wonder how many other corner cases / bugs
we may be missing in drivers. And therefore if we shouldn't flesh out
more device-related tests. But exercising the core code makes sense
in itself so no strong feelings.