netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tc-tests: Update tc police action tests for tc buffer size rounding fixes.

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: <5A7F44CD-DE17-4CC1-9270-7AAB5555B9E6@8x8.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 13:42:26 -0400
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan.lennox@....com>
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Jonathan Lennox <jonathan.lennox42@...il.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
 Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
 Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
 Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tc-tests: Update tc police action tests for tc
 buffer size rounding fixes.

I've submitted an updated version of the patch with the regex accepting both the old and new versions.

> On Mar 11, 2025, at 7:15 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 5:49 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:16:14 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>> AFAICS this fix will break the tests when running all version of
>>> iproute2 except the upcoming one. I think this is not good enough; you
>>> should detect the tc tool version and update expected output accordingly.
>>> 
>>> If that is not possible, I think it would be better to simply revert the
>>> TC commit.
>> 
>> Alternatively since it's a regex match, maybe we could accept both?
>> 
>> -        "matchPattern": "action order [0-9]*:  police 0x1 rate 7Mbit burst 1024Kb mtu 2Kb action reclassify",
>> +        "matchPattern": "action order [0-9]*:  police 0x1 rate 7Mbit burst (1Mb|1024Kb) mtu 2Kb action reclassify",
>> 
>> ? Not sure which option is most "correct" from TDC's perspective..
> 
> It should work. Paolo's suggestion is also reasonable.
> 
> cheers,
> jamal