[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <582e57e2-58e6-8a37-7dbc-67a2a1db7ecb@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 07:49:14 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
To: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
CC: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 6/6] selftests: bpf: test sockmap update from BPF
On 8/20/20 4:58 AM, Lorenz Bauer wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 21:46, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/19/20 2:24 AM, Lorenz Bauer wrote:
>>> Add a test which copies a socket from a sockmap into another sockmap
>>> or sockhash. This excercises bpf_map_update_elem support from BPF
>>> context. Compare the socket cookies from source and destination to
>>> ensure that the copy succeeded.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++
>>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_sockmap_copy.c | 48 ++++++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 124 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sockmap_copy.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
>>> index 96e7b7f84c65..d30cabc00e9e 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
>>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>>>
>>> #include "test_progs.h"
>>> #include "test_skmsg_load_helpers.skel.h"
>>> +#include "test_sockmap_copy.skel.h"
>>>
>>> #define TCP_REPAIR 19 /* TCP sock is under repair right now */
>>>
>>> @@ -101,6 +102,77 @@ static void test_skmsg_helpers(enum bpf_map_type map_type)
>>> test_skmsg_load_helpers__destroy(skel);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void test_sockmap_copy(enum bpf_map_type map_type)
>>> +{
>>> + struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr attr;
>>> + struct test_sockmap_copy *skel;
>>> + __u64 src_cookie, dst_cookie;
>>> + int err, prog, s, src, dst;
>>> + const __u32 zero = 0;
>>> + char dummy[14] = {0};
>>> +
>>> + s = connected_socket_v4();
>>
>> Maybe change variable name to "sk" for better clarity?
>
> Yup!
>
>>
>>> + if (CHECK_FAIL(s == -1))
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + skel = test_sockmap_copy__open_and_load();
>>> + if (CHECK_FAIL(!skel)) {
>>> + close(s);
>>> + perror("test_sockmap_copy__open_and_load");
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>
>> Could you use CHECK instead of CHECK_FAIL?
>> With CHECK, you can print additional information without perror.
>
> I avoid CHECK because it requires `duration`, which doesn't make sense
> for most things that I call CHECK_FAIL on here. So either it outputs 0
> nsec (which is bogus) or it outputs the value from the last
> bpf_prog_test_run call (which is also bogus). How do other tests
> handle this? Just ignore it?
Just ignore it. You can define a static variable duration in the
beginning of file and then use CHECK in the rest of file.
>
>>
>>
>>> +
>>> + prog = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.copy_sock_map);
>>> + src = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.src);
>>> + if (map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_SOCKMAP)
>>> + dst = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.dst_sock_map);
>>> + else
>>> + dst = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.dst_sock_hash);
>>> +
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists