netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] fix test

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

Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 09:42:14 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@....ntt.co.jp>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/5] fix test_sockmap

On 05/18/2018 12:17 AM, Prashant Bhole wrote:
> This series fixes bugs in test_sockmap code. They weren't caught
> previously because failure in RX/TX thread was not notified to the
> main thread.
> 
> Also fixed data verification logic and slightly improved test output
> such that parameters values (cork, apply, start, end) of failed test
> can be easily seen.
> 

Great, this was on my list so thanks for taking care of it.

> Note: Even after fixing above problems there are issues with tests
> which set cork parameter. Tests fail (RX thread timeout) when cork
> value is non-zero and overall data sent by TX thread isn't multiples
> of cork value.

This is expected. When 'cork' is set the sender should only xmit
the data when 'cork' bytes are available. If the user doesn't
provide the N bytes the data is cork'ed waiting for the bytes and
if the socket is closed the state is cleaned up. What these tests
are testing is the cleanup path when a user doesn't provide the
N bytes. In practice this is used to validate headers and prevent
users from sending partial headers. We want to keep these tests because
they verify a tear-down path in the code.

After your changes do these get reported as failures? If so we
need to account for the above in the calculations.

> 
> Prashant Bhole (5):
>   selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, check test failure
>   selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, join cgroup in selftest mode
>   selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, fix test timeout
>   selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, fix data verification
>   selftests/bpf: test_sockmap, print additional test options
> 
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>