linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/6] selftests/bpf: add test for XDP metadata support in tun driver

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <Z7yo3VfHofK-W7EY@mini-arch>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 09:14:05 -0800
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Marcus Wichelmann <marcus.wichelmann@...zner-cloud.de>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
	andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, andrii@...nel.org,
	eddyz87@...il.com, mykolal@...com, ast@...nel.org,
	daniel@...earbox.net, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
	yonghong.song@...ux.dev, john.fastabend@...il.com,
	kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me, haoluo@...gle.com,
	jolsa@...nel.org, shuah@...nel.org, hawk@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 5/6] selftests/bpf: add test for XDP metadata
 support in tun driver

On 02/24, Marcus Wichelmann wrote:
> Add a selftest that creates a tap device, attaches XDP and TC programs,
> writes a packet with a test payload into the tap device and checks the
> test result. This test ensures that the XDP metadata support in the tun
> driver is enabled and that the metadata size is correctly passed to the
> skb.
> 
> See the previous commit ("selftests/bpf: refactor xdp_context_functional
> test and bpf program") for details about the test design.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcus Wichelmann <marcus.wichelmann@...zner-cloud.de>
> ---
>  .../bpf/prog_tests/xdp_context_test_run.c     | 64 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 64 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_context_test_run.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_context_test_run.c
> index 4043f220d7c0..60aad6bd8882 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_context_test_run.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/xdp_context_test_run.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>  #define TX_NAME "veth1"
>  #define TX_NETNS "xdp_context_tx"
>  #define RX_NETNS "xdp_context_rx"
> +#define TAP_NAME "tap0"
>  
>  #define TEST_PAYLOAD_LEN 32
>  static const __u8 test_payload[TEST_PAYLOAD_LEN] = {
> @@ -251,3 +252,66 @@ void test_xdp_context_veth(void)
>  	netns_free(tx_ns);
>  }
>  
> +void test_xdp_context_tuntap(void)

tap0 is already used by lwt tests, so there is a chance this new test
will clash with it? Should we run your new test in a net namespace
to be safe? Bastien recently added a change where you can make
your test run in a net ns by naming the function test_ns_xxx.