linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] selftests: netdevsim: Fix ethtool-features.sh fail

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: <20251104165121.7069ad66@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 16:51:21 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc: Wang Liang <wangliang74@...wei.com>, andrew@...n.ch,
 davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
 shuah@...nel.org, horms@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 yuehaibing@...wei.com, zhangchangzhong@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] selftests: netdevsim: Fix ethtool-features.sh fail

On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 12:04:52 +0100 Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> So I guess you would lean toward not accepting any such patch, not
> requiring new tests to have SKIP checks, but leaving any existing
> checks in?

Yes, IOW leave it at the discretion of the test author.

> (and I suspect removing all the existing ones wouldn't
> actually reduce the flow of "add check for too old $tool" patches, so
> it probably doesn't make sense to do that)