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]

Message-Id: <20190618.103759.1101173171614676988.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
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

From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:15:16 +0200

> 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.

Ok I see how skip works, thanks for explaining.

It would just be nice if it could work in a way such that we could
distinguish "too old kernel for feature" from "missing Kconfig symbol
in selftest config template". :-)