2026-03-23, 09:32:43 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:02:59 +0100 Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > 2026-03-23, 14:42:00 +0000, Cosmin Ratiu wrote: > > > On Mon, 2026-03-23 at 15:28 +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > > > Why not? Being able to test without accessing real HW is still > > > > useful. > > > > > > > The tests now send macsec traffic over VLANs and nsim, it's just that > > > nsim doesn't deal with VLAN filters at all and there are no stubbed > > > vlan filters in debugfs, since real hw doesn't have that interface. > > > > Since netdevsim doesn't deal with VLAN filters at all, the "tests > > should be written so that they can run both against ``netdevsim`` and > > a real device" bit of the docs doesn't fully apply here? > > > > Anyway, I think the original tests had value, even if they're more > > limited in some ways than traffic tests. HW/driver behavior could be > > hiding problems in the stack with VLAN propagation, those simpler > > tests don't have that risk. > > To be clear running the HW test without NETIF= should provide > similar functionality to what the old tests could do. It's entirely > okay to add netdevsim-specific subtests/test cases or asserts. > > Is there anything specific that you'd like to be tested?
In v2/v3, nsim was exposing a debugfs file that contained the list of VLAN filters on that interface, and the selftest was grepping through that file to check if the correct entry was added/removed after each operation. I see that as testing the actual propagation of filters, while the traffic tests check the visible behavior of stack+driver+HW, which may not be correlated to actual propagation. > Let's not make this about HW tests vs nsim-only tests. That was not my intention. But since nsim doesn't currently implement VLAN filters, it seems running the HW test on nsim doesn't test anything at all. -- Sabrina
