netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2] selftests: drv-net: add configs for the TSO test

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: <20250604145354.4f9c33b4@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 14:53:54 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, horms@...nel.org,
 shuah@...nel.org, willemb@...gle.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] selftests: drv-net: add configs for the TSO test

On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 09:47:48 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Add missing config options for the tso.py test, specifically
> > to make sure the kernel is built with vxlan and gre tunnels.
> > 
> > I noticed this while adding a TSO-capable device QEMU to the CI.
> > Previously we only run virtio tests and it doesn't report LSO
> > stats on the QEMU we have.
> > 
> > Fixes: 0d0f4174f6c8 ("selftests: drv-net: add a simple TSO test")
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>  
> 
> Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> 
> I wonder if we'll slowly recreate tools/testing/selftests/net/config.
> An ugly hack, but maybe let the Makefile just copy that config here?
> Or append it.

Yes, even drivers/net vs drivers/net/hw is a bit annoying.
Not sure how to cleanly align with selftest infra here :(
Our CI right now only uses configs from the TARGETS we're intending 
to run. While it makes sense "to a human" to include net,
is it clean to auto-include $target if drivers/$target is included?
Maybe...

To some extent I think the issue was that we haven't actually had
any device on which NIPA could run this test. Otherwise we'd have
caught the problem before merging.