netdev - Re: [Patch bpf-next v2 9/9] selftests/bpf: add a test case for udp sockmap

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 2 Mar 2021 10:05:18 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Cc:     Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        duanxiongchun@...edance.com,
        Dongdong Wang <wangdongdong.6@...edance.com>,
        Jiang Wang <jiang.wang@...edance.com>,
        Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf-next v2 9/9] selftests/bpf: add a test case for udp sockmap

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:32 AM Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 02:38, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>
> >
> > Add a test case to ensure redirection between two UDP sockets work.
>
> I basically don't understand how splicing works, but watching from the
> sidelines makes me think it'd be good to have more thorough tests.
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c has quite elaborate tests
> for the TCP part, it'd be nice to get similar tests going for UDP. For

Sure, TCP supports more than just BPF_SK_SKB_VERDICT, hence
why it must have more tests than UDP. ;)

> example:
>
> * sendfile?
> * sendmmsg

Does UDP support any of these? I don't think so, at least not in my
patchset.

> * Something Jakub mentioned: what happens when a connected, spliced
> socket is disconnected via connect(AF_UNSPEC)? Seems like we don't
> hook sk_prot->disconnect anywhere.

But we hook ->unhash(), right?

Thanks.