netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 02/13] selftests: ncdevmem: Remove validation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHS8izNOZMeNi4WNWL9jmLd-rJeGA=M3zBKDSzMNHZ3sZOxUuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 13:36:28 -0700
From: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, 
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/13] selftests: ncdevmem: Remove validation

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 10:12 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me> wrote:
>
> ncdevmem should (see next patches) print the payload on the stdout.
> The validation can and should be done by the callers:
>
> $ ncdevmem -l ... > file
> $ sha256sum file
>
> Cc: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c | 56 +++-----------------------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c
> index 352dba211fb0..3712296d997b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c
> @@ -64,24 +64,13 @@
>  static char *server_ip = "192.168.1.4";
>  static char *client_ip = "192.168.1.2";
>  static char *port = "5201";
> -static size_t do_validation;
>  static int start_queue = 8;
>  static int num_queues = 8;
>  static char *ifname = "eth1";
>  static unsigned int ifindex;
>  static unsigned int dmabuf_id;
>
> -void print_bytes(void *ptr, size_t size)
> -{
> -       unsigned char *p = ptr;
> -       int i;
> -
> -       for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
> -               printf("%02hhX ", p[i]);
> -       printf("\n");
> -}
> -
> -void print_nonzero_bytes(void *ptr, size_t size)
> +static void print_nonzero_bytes(void *ptr, size_t size)
>  {
>         unsigned char *p = ptr;
>         unsigned int i;
> @@ -91,30 +80,6 @@ void print_nonzero_bytes(void *ptr, size_t size)
>         printf("\n");
>  }
>
> -void validate_buffer(void *line, size_t size)
> -{
> -       static unsigned char seed = 1;
> -       unsigned char *ptr = line;
> -       int errors = 0;
> -       size_t i;
> -
> -       for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> -               if (ptr[i] != seed) {
> -                       fprintf(stderr,
> -                               "Failed validation: expected=%u, actual=%u, index=%lu\n",
> -                               seed, ptr[i], i);
> -                       errors++;

FWIW the index at where the validation started to fail often gives
critical clues about where the bug is, along with this line, which I'm
glad is not removed:

printf("received frag_page=%llu, in_page_offset=%llu,
frag_offset=%llu, frag_size=%u, token=%u, total_received=%lu,
dmabuf_id=%u\n",

I think we can ensure that what is doing the validation above ncdevmem
prints enough context about the error. Although, just to understand
your thinking a bit, why not have this binary do the validation
itself?

--
Thanks,
Mina