netdev - Re: [PATCH net] selftests: net: add missing config for big tcp tests

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: <20240126115551.176e3888@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:55:51 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Xin Long
 <lucien.xin@...il.com>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, Aaron Conole
 <aconole@...hat.com>, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] selftests: net: add missing config for big tcp
 tests

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 16:32:36 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> The big_tcp test-case requires a few kernel knobs currently
> not specified in the net selftests config, causing the
> following failure:
> 
>   # selftests: net: big_tcp.sh
>   # Error: Failed to load TC action module.
>   # We have an error talking to the kernel
> ...
>   # Testing for BIG TCP:
>   # CLI GSO | GW GRO | GW GSO | SER GRO
>   # ./big_tcp.sh: line 107: test: !=: unary operator expected
> ...
>   # on        on       on       on      : [FAIL_on_link1]
> 
> Add the missing configs
> 
> Fixes: 6bb382bcf742 ("selftests: add a selftest for big tcp")
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>

Ah, great, I was missing RF_RAW in the local hack.
I applied manually because looks like this change is on top of
something:

patching file tools/testing/selftests/net/config
Hunk #3 succeeded at 73 with fuzz 1 (offset -1 lines).
Hunk #4 succeeded at 82 (offset -1 lines).

While at it I reordered the values a little bit to be closer to what 
I think would get us closer to alphasort. Hope you don't mind.