netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: netdevsim: Support setting dev->perm

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: <20250205090000.3eb3cb9d@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:00:00 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: netdevsim: Support setting dev->perm_addr

On Wed, 05 Feb 2025 10:05:17 +0100 Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> >> Can certainly add a test case, sure! Any preference for where to put it?
> >> Somewhere in selftests/net, I guess, but where? rtnetlink.sh and
> >> bpf_offload.py seem to be the only files currently doing anything with
> >> netdevsim. I could add a case to the former?  
> >
> > No preference, just an emphasis on _meaningful_.  
> 
> OK, so checking that the feature works is not enough, in other words?

Depends on your definition of "feature works". Going thru all the
address types and how they behave would be a reasonable test I think.
Checking that an address from debugfs makes it to netlink would not.

> > Kernel supports loading OOT modules, too. I really don't want us
> > to be in the business of carrying test harnesses for random pieces
> > of user space code.  
> 
> Right. How do you feel about Andrew's suggestion of just setting a
> static perm_addr for netdevsim devices?

I don't see how that'd be sufficient for a meaningful test.