netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] selftests: drv-net: gro: improve feature config

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: <20251129171359.7fd4ddb4@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2025 17:13:59 -0800
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, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] selftests: drv-net: gro: improve feature
 config

On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 15:44:06 -0500 Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >  import os
> >  from lib.py import ksft_run, ksft_exit, ksft_pr
> >  from lib.py import NetDrvEpEnv, KsftXfailEx
> > -from lib.py import cmd, defer, bkg, ip
> > +from lib.py import cmd, defer, bkg, ethtool, ip  
> 
> Is there a pattern behind this order. Since inserted rather than
> appended. Intended to be alphabetical?

"alphabetical if I remember"? :(

> >  from lib.py import ksft_variants
> >  
> >  
> > @@ -70,6 +70,27 @@ from lib.py import ksft_variants
> >          defer(ip, f"link set dev {dev['ifname']} mtu {dev['mtu']}", host=host)
> >  
> >  
> > +def _set_ethtool_feat(dev, current, feats, host=None):
> > +    s2n = {True: "on", False: "off"}
> > +
> > +    new = ["-K", dev]
> > +    old = ["-K", dev]
> > +    no_change = True
> > +    for name, state in feats.items():
> > +        new += [name, s2n[state]]
> > +        old += [name, s2n[not state]]  
> 
> Should the change set not only include items for which
> current != state?
> 
> Now old assumes not state, but that is not necessarily true?

Good catch