netdev - Re: 4.19: udpgso_bench_tx: setsockopt zerocopy: Unknown error 524

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]

Date:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:15:16 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, naresh.kamboju@...aro.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, fklassen@...neta.com
Subject: Re: 4.19: udpgso_bench_tx: setsockopt zerocopy: Unknown error 524

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:59AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:37:33 -0400
> 
> > Specific to the above test, I can add a check command testing
> > setsockopt SO_ZEROCOPY  return value. AFAIK kselftest has no explicit
> > way to denote "skipped", so this would just return "pass". Sounds a
> > bit fragile, passing success when a feature is absent.
> 
> Especially since the feature might be absent because the 'config'
> template forgot to include a necessary Kconfig option.

That is what the "skip" response is for, don't return "pass" if the
feature just isn't present.  That lets people run tests on systems
without the config option enabled as you say, or on systems without the
needed userspace tools present.

thanks,

greg k-h