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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20231006173030.4908a356@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 17:30:30 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, alexander.duyck@...il.com, fw@...len.de, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] add skb_segment kunit coverage On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 09:48:54 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote: > As discussed at netconf last week. Some kernel code is exercised in > many different ways. skb_segment is a prime example. This ~350 line > function has 49 different patches in git blame with 28 different > authors. > > When making a change, e.g., to fix a bug in one specific use case, > it is hard to establish through analysis alone that the change does > not break the many other paths through the code. It is impractical to > exercise all code paths through regression testing from userspace. > > Add the minimal infrastructure needed to add KUnit tests to networking, > and add code coverage for this function. Apparently we're supposed add descriptions to all modules now: WARNING: modpost: missing MODULE_DESCRIPTION() in net/core/gso_test.o
Powered by blists - more mailing lists