netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] selftests: drv-net: fix RPS mask handling for high CPU numbers

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <willemdebruijn.kernel.e77552f797c0@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 11:06:12 -0500
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, 
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, 
 Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>, 
 Coco Li <lixiaoyan@...gle.com>, 
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, 
 Nimrod Oren <noren@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] selftests: drv-net: fix RPS mask handling
 for high CPU numbers

Gal Pressman wrote:
> On 12/01/2026 5:29, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Gal Pressman wrote:
> >> The RPS bitmask bounds check uses ~(RPS_MAX_CPUS - 1) which equals ~15 =
> >> 0xfff0, only allowing CPUs 0-3.
> >>
> >> Change the mask to ~((1UL << RPS_MAX_CPUS) - 1) = ~0xffff to allow CPUs
> >> 0-15.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 5ebfb4cc3048 ("selftests/net: toeplitz test")
> >> Reviewed-by: Nimrod Oren <noren@...dia.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
> > 
> > Should go to net instead of net-next?
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com> 
> 
> I usually send tests bug fixes to net-next, since it doesn't fix a bug
> in the kernel.
> 
> Should I send those to net instead?

I'm not aware of a separate policy for tests. Not sure if maintainers
have a preference. Probably behavior on this is a bit inconsistent
anyway.