linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] GCPS Spec Compliance Patch Set

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/WkmPcCJ0e2go97@home.paul.comp>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 01:35:04 +0300
From: Paul Fertser <fercerpav@...il.com>
To: Hari Kalavakunta <kalavakunta.hari.prasad@...il.com>
Cc: Sam Mendoza-Jonas <sam@...dozajonas.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        horms@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        npeacock@...a.com, akozlov@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] GCPS Spec Compliance Patch Set

On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 03:02:14PM -0700, Hari Kalavakunta wrote:
> On 4/8/2025 12:19 PM, Paul Fertser wrote:
> 
> > In other words, you're testing your code only with simulated data so
> > there's no way to guarantee it's going to work on any real life
> > hardware (as we know hardware doesn't always exactly match the specs)?
> > That's unsettling. Please do mention it in the commit log, it's an
> > essential point. Better yet, consider going a bit off-centre after the
> > regular verification and do a control run on real hardware.
> > 
> > After all, that's what the code is for so if it all possible it's
> > better to know if it does the actual job before merging (to avoid
> > noise from follow-up patches like yours which fix something that never
> > worked because it was never tested).
> 
> I would like to request a week's time to integrate a real hardware
> interface, which will enable me to test and demonstrate end-to-end results.
> This will also allow me to identify and address any additional issues that
> may arise during the testing process. Thank you for the feedback.

Thank you for doing the right thing! Looking forward to your updated
patch (please do not forget to consider __be64 for the fields).