netdev - RE: [PATCH NEXT 1/2] net: add external loopback test in ethtool self test

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]

Date:	Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:26:37 -0500
From:	Amit Salecha <amit.salecha@...gic.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ameen Rahman <ameen.rahman@...gic.com>,
	Sucheta Chakraborty <sucheta.chakraborty@...gic.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH NEXT 1/2] net: add external loopback test in ethtool
 self test

> From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@...arflare.com]
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH NEXT 1/2] net: add external loopback test in
> ethtool self test
> 
> >
> > So adding explicit flag in ethtool self test, which will specify
> interface
> > to perform external loopback test.
> 
> The trouble with adding flags to enum ethtool_test_flags is that there
> is really no general way to tell whether the driver understood the
> flag.
> 
> I think you need to add a second flag which the driver sets to confirm
> that it *did* use external loopback.
>

If I understood correctly:
You are concern about drives which doesn't support external loopback test.
In this case application doesn't have no general way to know, whether driver has
performed external loopback test.
Though the test case will be mention in test set. (return by .get_strings)

I will add it and send revised patch.

> > +/*
> > + * Flags definition of ethtool_test
> > + *
> > + * ETH_TEST_FL_OFFLINE:  online / offline
> > + * ETH_TEST_FL_FAILED: test passed / failed
> > + * ETH_TEST_FL_EXTERNAL_LB: perform external loopback test
> > + */
> > +
> 
> Replacing the inline comments with a block comment is fine, but please
> use kernel-doc format.
> 
I will fix it.

-Amit