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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue,  3 Aug 2021 16:14:15 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH net] docs: networking: netdevsim rules

There are aspects of netdevsim which are commonly
misunderstood and pointed out in review. Cong
suggest we document them.

Suggested-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
---
 Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
index 91b2cf712801..e26532f49760 100644
--- a/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
+++ b/Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst
@@ -228,6 +228,23 @@ before posting to the mailing list. The patchwork build bot instance
 gets overloaded very easily and netdev@...r really doesn't need more
 traffic if we can help it.
 
+netdevsim is great, can I extend it for my out-of-tree tests?
+-------------------------------------------------------------
+
+No, `netdevsim` is a test vehicle solely for upstream tests.
+(Please add your tests under tools/testing/selftests/.)
+
+We also give no guarantees that `netdevsim` won't change in the future
+in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI.
+
+Is netdevsim considered a "user" of an API?
+-------------------------------------------
+
+Linux kernel has a long standing rule that no API should be added unless
+it has a real, in-tree user. Mock-ups and tests based on `netdevsim` are
+strongly encouraged when adding new APIs, but `netdevsim` in itself
+is **not** considered a use case/user.
+
 Any other tips to help ensure my net/net-next patch gets OK'd?
 --------------------------------------------------------------
 Attention to detail.  Re-read your own work as if you were the
-- 
2.31.1

Powered by blists - more mailing lists