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  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:   Mon, 29 Jun 2020 11:13:07 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@...com>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 07/10] bpf: selftests: Restore netns after each test

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:00 AM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 01:31:42PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:23 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 03:45:04PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:56 AM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It is common for networking tests creating its netns and making its own
> > > > > setting under this new netns (e.g. changing tcp sysctl).  If the test
> > > > > forgot to restore to the original netns, it would affect the
> > > > > result of other tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch saves the original netns at the beginning and then restores it
> > > > > after every test.  Since the restore "setns()" is not expensive, it does it
> > > > > on all tests without tracking if a test has created a new netns or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.h |  2 ++
> > > > >  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> > > > > index 54fa5fa688ce..b521ce366381 100644
> > > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
> > > > > @@ -121,6 +121,24 @@ static void reset_affinity() {
> > > > >         }
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static void save_netns(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       env.saved_netns_fd = open("/proc/self/ns/net", O_RDONLY);
> > > > > +       if (env.saved_netns_fd == -1) {
> > > > > +               perror("open(/proc/self/ns/net)");
> > > > > +               exit(-1);
> > > > > +       }
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static void restore_netns(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       if (setns(env.saved_netns_fd, CLONE_NEWNET) == -1) {
> > > > > +               stdio_restore();
> > > > > +               perror("setns(CLONE_NEWNS)");
> > > > > +               exit(-1);
> > > > > +       }
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > >  void test__end_subtest()
> > > > >  {
> > > > >         struct prog_test_def *test = env.test;
> > > > > @@ -643,6 +661,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > > > >                 return -1;
> > > > >         }
> > > > >
> > > > > +       save_netns();
> > > >
> > > > you should probably do this also after each sub-test in test__end_subtest()?
> > > You mean restore_netns()?
> >
> > oops, yeah :)
> >
> > >
> > > It is a tough call.
> > > Some tests may only want to create a netns at the beginning for all the subtests
> > > to use (e.g. sk_assign.c).  restore_netns() after each subtest may catch
> > > tester in surprise that the netns is not in its full control while its
> > > own test is running.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to update such self-tests to setns on each
> > sub-test properly? It should be a simple code re-use exercise, unless
> > I'm missing some other implications of having to do it before each
> > sub-test?
> It should be simple, I think.  Haven't looked into details of each test.
> However, I won't count re-running the same piece of code in a for-loop
> as a re-use exercise ;)
>
> In my vm, a quick try in forcing sk_assign.c to reconfigure netns in each
> subtest in the for loop increased the runtime from 1s to 8s.
> I guess it is not a big deal for test_progs.

Oh, no, thank you very much, no one needs extra 7 seconds of
test_progs run. Can you please remove reset_affinity() from sub-test
clean up then, and consistently do clean ups only between tests?

>
> >
> > The idea behind sub-test is (at least it was so far) that it's
> > independent from other sub-tests and tests, and it's only co-located
> > with other sub-tests for the purpose of code reuse and logical
> > grouping. Which is why we reset CPU affinity, for instance.
> >
> > >
> > > I think an individual test should have managed the netns properly within its
> > > subtests already if it wants a correct test result.  It can unshare at the
> > > beginning of each subtest to get a clean state (e.g. in patch 8).
> > > test_progs.c only ensures a config made by an earlier test does
> > > not affect the following tests.
> >
> > It's true that it gives more flexibility for test setup, but if we go
> > that way, we should do it consistently for CPU affinity resetting and
> > whatever else we do per-subtest. I wonder what your answers would be
> > for the above questions. We can go either way, just let's be
> > consistent.
> Right, I also don't feel strongly about which way to go for netns.
> I noticed reset_affinity().  cgroup cleanup is also per test though.
> I think netns is more close to cgroup in terms of bpf prog is running under it,
> so this patch picked the current way.
>
> If it is decided to stay with reset_affinity's way,  I can make netns change
> to other tests (there are two if i grep properly).
>
> It seems there is no existing subtest requires to reset_affinity.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists