netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net-timestamp: add OPT_ID

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: <CAL+tcoBD-pHjGPOY9-N94cbNTE=EX+2riUMSk+n-57rtyFPEQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:17:25 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, 
	pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, willemb@...gle.com, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net-timestamp: add OPT_ID_TCP test in selftests

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 7:54 PM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Jason Xing wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 6:42 PM Willem de Bruijn
> > <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jason Xing wrote:
> > > > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
> > > >
> > > > Introduce a test for SOF_TIMESTAMPING_OPT_ID_TCP for TCP proto so
> > > > that we can get aware of whether using write_seq as an initial key
> > > > value works as expected.
> > >
> > > Does the test behave different with this flag set?
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, my mistake, the last email is not open to the mailing list. So
> > I copy that here.
> >
> > Not that much, only at the very beginning, this new test will use
> > write_seq directly.
>
> The kernel will act differently. But the test does not detect this.

No, it will not cover this.

>
> > I once thought and wondered if I need to setsockopt() when one or two
> > sendmsg() are already done, then we check the behaviour of subsequent
> > sendmsg() calls. Then I changed my mind because it's a bit complex. Do
> > you think it's a good way to test?
>
> Packetdrill is more suitable for deterministically testing such subtle
> differences.
>
> I have a packetdrill test for OPT_ID with and without OPT_ID_TCP. It
> is not public yet. As part of upstreaming our packetdrill tests, this
> will eventually also be available.

Good to hear that. Now I think I will drop this patch.

Thanks,
Jason