netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: add a note on selftest posting

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: <20250306112522.0a2b38b6@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:25:22 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: add a note on selftest posting

On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:22:49 +0100 Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> > +Co-posting selftests
> > +--------------------
> > +
> > +Selftests should be part of the same series as the code changes.
> > +Specifically for fixes both code change and related test should go into
> > +the same tree (the tests may lack a Fixes tag, which is expected).  
> 
> Regarding the Fixes tag in the tests, could we eventually suggest using
> the same one as for the code change?
> 
> Sometimes, I do that to get the corresponding test backported as well,
> if there are no conflicts. That's good to have an easy way to check if
> something has been correctly fixed on stable versions as well.

Hm, that's probably up to the stable team to decide. My intuition
is to reserve Fixes tags for fixes, and add another tag if necessary.
The mention of the Fixes tag was primarily because of NIPA checks...
A bit of a wink and a nod since we try not to speak about NIPA checks.

> The only thing is with the selftests written in Python or Bash: it is
> easy to get a situation where there are no conflicts, but the
> modification doesn't work, e.g. some functions or variables are not
> available, etc. The stable team will then not notice that during their
> build tests. Not sure if my suggestion is safe to recommend then.

Good point..