On 4/14/26 11:08 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On 4/14/26 7:50 AM, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 6:32 PM Jiayuan Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Add read_tcpext_snmp() helper to network_helpers which reads a >>> TcpExt SNMP counter via nstat, and use it in the tcp_custom_syncookie >>> test to verify that LINUX_MIB_SYNCOOKIESRECV is incremented and >>> LINUX_MIB_SYNCOOKIESFAILED stays unchanged across a successful >>> BPF custom syncookie validation. >>> >>> The delta is captured between start_server() and accept(), which >>> covers the full SYN/ACK/cookie-check path for one connection. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jiayuan Chen <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/network_helpers.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/network_helpers.h | 1 + >>> .../bpf/prog_tests/tcp_custom_syncookie.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++ >> >> As you touch bpf selftest helper files, please rebase on bpf-next >> to avoid possible conflicts and tag bpf-next in the Subject. > > To hopefully minimize the conflicts handling I'm going to apply patch > 1/2 to net-next. Please resubmit patch 2/2 to bpf-next after the > relevant net core reach there.
Uhmm... the original feature went through the bpf tree, so I guess both patches could/should via bpf-next. Hopefully conflict into the tcp code should be minimal. @Eric, @Daniel: please LMK if you prefer otherwise. /P
