netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests: net: ioam: add tunsrc support

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: <bbeb8c77-1772-45a2-8626-a4e064ab7c54@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 09:57:45 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@...ege.be>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 shuah@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] selftests: net: ioam: add tunsrc support

On 9/7/24 18:42, Justin Iurman wrote:
> TL;DR This patch comes from a discussion we had with Jakub and Paolo.
> 
> This patch updates the IOAM selftests to support the new "tunsrc"
> feature of IOAM. As a consequence, some changes were required. For
> example, the IPv6 header must be accessed to check some fields (i.e.,
> the source address for the "tunsrc" feature), which is not possible
> AFAIK with IPv6 raw sockets. The latter is currently used with
> IPV6_RECVHOPOPTS and was introduced by commit 187bbb6968af ("selftests:
> ioam: refactoring to align with the fix") to fix an issue. But, we
> really need packet sockets actually... which is one of the changes in
> this patch (see the description of the topology at the top of ioam6.sh
> for explanations). Another change is that all IPv6 addresses used in the
> topology are now based on the documentation prefix (2001:db8::/32).
> Also, the tests have been improved and there are now many more of them.
> Overall, the script is more robust.
> 
> The diff is kind of a mess. Since it's "just" a selftests patch, I
> didn't bother having a series of two patches (one to remove it, one to
> add the new one back). Let me know if you think it's necessary for
> readability.
> 
> Note: this patch needs this [1] iproute2-next patch to be merged
> (waiting for David to do so, should be done soon).
> 
>    [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=884653
> 
> Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@...ege.be>

Unfortunatelly we was unable to process this patch before the merge 
window and net-next is currently closed. You will need to repost it is ~2w.

Strictly speaking about the patch contents, any chance you could 
refactor the change in a more 'incremental' way?
The current format is very hard to review, and even self-tests patches 
deserve some love ;)

Thanks,

Paolo