netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 2/2] selftests: Update test_tc_neigh to use the modified bpf_redirect

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:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:48:39 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next 2/2] selftests: Update test_tc_neigh to use
 the modified bpf_redirect_neigh()

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> writes:

> On 10/15/20 5:46 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>> 
>> This updates the test_tc_neigh selftest to use the new syntax of
>> bpf_redirect_neigh(). To exercise the helper both with and without the
>> optional parameter, one forwarding direction is changed to do a
>> bpf_fib_lookup() followed by a call to bpf_redirect_neigh(), while the
>> other direction is using the map-based ifindex lookup letting the redirect
>> helper resolve the nexthop from the FIB.
>> 
>> This also fixes the test_tc_redirect.sh script to work on systems that have
>> a consolidated dual-stack 'ping' binary instead of separate ping/ping6
>> versions.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
>
> I would prefer if you could not mix the two tests, meaning, one complete test
> case is only with bpf_redirect_neigh(get_dev_ifindex(xxx), NULL, 0, 0) for both
> directions, and another self-contained one is with fib lookup + bpf_redirect_neigh
> with params, even if it means we duplicate test_tc_neigh.c slighly, but I think
> that's fine for sake of test coverage.

Sure, can do :)

-Toke