netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] selftests: net: add YNL test framework

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: <aQL--I9z19zRJ4vo@fedora>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 06:00:24 +0000
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>,
	"Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)" <matttbe@...nel.org>,
	Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
	Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>,
	Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] selftests: net: add YNL test framework

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 04:41:59PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:22:45 +0000 Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > Add a test framework for YAML Netlink (YNL) tools, covering both CLI and
> > ethtool functionality. The framework includes:
> > 
> > 1) cli: family listing, netdev, ethtool, rt-* families, and nlctrl
> >    operations
> > 2) ethtool: device info, statistics, ring/coalesce/pause parameters, and
> >    feature gettings
> > 
> > The current YNL syntax is a bit obscure, and end users may not always know
> > how to use it. This test framework provides usage examples and also serves
> > as a regression test to catch potential breakages caused by future changes.
> 
> Hm, my knee-jerk reaction was that we should avoid adding too much ynl
> stuff to the kernel at this point. But looking closer it's not that
> long.
> 
> Do I understand correctly, tho, that you're testing _system_ YNL?
> Not what's in tree?

Kind of. With this we can test both the system's YNL and also make sure the
YNL interface has no regression.

Thanks
Hangbin