netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:08:59 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@....com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davejwatson@...com" <davejwatson@...com>,
        "doronrk@...com" <doronrk@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

On 09/18/2018 01:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:17:03 +0000 Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@....com> wrote:
>>
>> Got it. 
>> Thanks for the guidance.
> 
> So, what should I remove? ;-)

My (very own personal) preference in general would be that we test / assert
the kernel behavior that exists /today/, meaning once we implement support
for multi-record peek we add the corresponding test case along with that
code. Fwiw, this practice would be consistent with the rest of the kernel
selftests development model we have under net (& bpf).

Thanks,
Daniel