[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11d72466-f2b2-4133-beb8-056ebc589bc9@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 15:31:37 -0800
From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
To: zhangmingyi <zhangmingyi5@...wei.com>
Cc: ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, song@...nel.org,
yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yanan@...wei.com, wuchangye@...wei.com,
xiesongyang@...wei.com, liuxin350@...wei.com, liwei883@...wei.com,
tianmuyang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] add selftest for TCP_ULP in bpf_setsockopt
On 1/27/25 1:07 AM, zhangmingyi wrote:
> This case invokes bpf_setsockopt and bpf_getsockopt to set ulp.
> The existing smc_ulp_ops of the kernel is used as a test case to test
> whether the setting and get operations can be performed normally.
>
> Signed-off-by: zhangmingyi <zhangmingyi5@...wei.com>
> ---
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/setget_sockopt.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/setget_sockopt.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/setget_sockopt.c
> index 6dd4318debbf..dcdf26ef41c4 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/setget_sockopt.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/setget_sockopt.c
> @@ -327,6 +327,18 @@ static int test_tcp_maxseg(void *ctx, struct sock *sk)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int test_tcp_ulp(void *ctx, struct sock *sk)
> +{
> + __u8 saved_syn[20];
> +
> + if (sk->sk_state == TCP_SYN_SENT)
> + return bpf_setsockopt(ctx, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_ULP,
> + "smc", sizeof("smc"));
The test_progs/setget_sockopt.c is using "tls" in a setsockopt(TCP_ULP) call. I
would rather not to introduce another ulp in this selftest. Let stay with "tls".
btw, the indentation is off...
> +
> + return bpf_getsockopt(ctx, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_ULP,
> + saved_syn, sizeof(saved_syn));
same here on indentation.
Also, the getsockopt test should ensure it gets the same ulp name back (i.e.
"tls"). Take a look at bpf_strncmp.
> +}
> +
> static int test_tcp_saved_syn(void *ctx, struct sock *sk)
> {
> __u8 saved_syn[20];
> @@ -395,16 +407,19 @@ int skops_sockopt(struct bpf_sock_ops *skops)
> break;
> case BPF_SOCK_OPS_TCP_CONNECT_CB:
> nr_connect += !(bpf_test_sockopt(skops, sk) ||
> - test_tcp_maxseg(skops, sk));
> + test_tcp_maxseg(skops, sk) ||
> + test_tcp_ulp(skops, sk));
For other optnames, it makes sense to reuse the existing "skops_sockopt" BPF
program. For ulp, it could change the sendmsg, recvmsg, and a few other
behaviors. I would prefer to separate it out into its own BPF program to avoid
future surprises on the existing tests in prog_tests/setget_sockopt.c. Keep the
new BPF program simple, e.g. implement a new BPF program for
"lsm_cgroup/socket_post_create" and only check for bpf_set/getsockopt(TCP_ULP).
Please tag the set for bpf-next. The "ipv4" in the patch 1's subject is not
accurate also. afaik, ulp is not specific to ipv4.
Also, the bpf CI complains that the test cannot compile.
pw-bot: cr
> break;
> case BPF_SOCK_OPS_ACTIVE_ESTABLISHED_CB:
> nr_active += !(bpf_test_sockopt(skops, sk) ||
> - test_tcp_maxseg(skops, sk));
> + test_tcp_maxseg(skops, sk) ||
> + test_tcp_ulp(skops, sk));
> break;
> case BPF_SOCK_OPS_PASSIVE_ESTABLISHED_CB:
> nr_passive += !(bpf_test_sockopt(skops, sk) ||
> test_tcp_maxseg(skops, sk) ||
> - test_tcp_saved_syn(skops, sk));
> + test_tcp_saved_syn(skops, sk) ||
> + test_tcp_ulp(skops, sk));
> flags = skops->bpf_sock_ops_cb_flags | BPF_SOCK_OPS_STATE_CB_FLAG;
> bpf_setsockopt(skops, SOL_TCP, TCP_BPF_SOCK_OPS_CB_FLAGS, &flags, sizeof(flags));
> break;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists