On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:46:10PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 2/2/22 11:30 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote: > > Although both iproute2 and the kernel accept 1 and 2 as tos values for > > new routes, those are invalid. These values only set ECN bits, which > > are ignored during IPv4 fib lookups. Therefore, no packet can actually > > match such routes. This selftest therefore only succeeds because it > > doesn't verify that the new routes do actually work in practice (it > > just checks if the routes are offloaded or not). > > > > It makes more sense to use tos values that don't conflict with ECN. > > This way, the selftest won't be affected if we later decide to warn or > > even reject invalid tos configurations for new routes. > > Wouldn't it make sense to leave these invalid values in the test though. > Removing these makes this test out of sync withe kernel. Do you mean keeping the test as is and only modify it when (if) we decide to reject such invalid values? Or to write two versions of the test, one with invalid values, the other with correct ones? I don't get what keeping a test with the invalid values could bring us. It's confusing for the reader, and might break in the future. This patch makes the test future proof, without altering its intent and code coverage. It still works on current (and past) kernels, so I don't see what this patch could make out of sync. Or did I misunderstand something? > thanks, > -- Shuah >
