On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > 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.
I think it is best to land both patches together. It seems the 7.1 pull-request is out. We can take it to bpf-next/net after the merge window and then follow by a pull-request for the net-next tree as usual.
