[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201106075536.GT2531@dhcp-12-153.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 15:55:36 +0800
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, William Tu <u9012063@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftest/bpf: remove unused bpf tunnel
testing code
On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 11:30:35PM -0800, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -585,12 +571,11 @@ int _ipip6_set_tunnel(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> > struct bpf_tunnel_key key = {};
> > void *data = (void *)(long)skb->data;
> > struct iphdr *iph = data;
> v4 hdr here.
Ah, right, I didn't notice this. I will fix it, maybe by checking
skb->family and use different IPv4,v6 hdr.
> > -SEC("ip6ip6_set_tunnel")
> > -int _ip6ip6_set_tunnel(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> > -{
> > - struct bpf_tunnel_key key = {};
> > - void *data = (void *)(long)skb->data;
> > - struct ipv6hdr *iph = data;
> IIUC, the patch is to replace _ip6ip6_set_tunnel with _ipip6_set_tunnel.
>
> Are they testing the same thing? At least, _ip6ip6_set_tunnel()
> is expecting a v6 hdr here.
Yes, the v4/v6 hdr here is just to check the data length.
>
> > - struct tcphdr *tcp = data + sizeof(*iph);
> > - void *data_end = (void *)(long)skb->data_end;
> > - int ret;
> > -
> > - /* single length check */
> > - if (data + sizeof(*iph) + sizeof(*tcp) > data_end) {
> > - ERROR(1);
> > - return TC_ACT_SHOT;
> > - }
^^ here
> > -
> > - key.remote_ipv6[0] = bpf_htonl(0x2401db00);
> > - key.tunnel_ttl = 64;
The code logic is same. It set tunnel remote addr to dst IPv6 address, as
they are both testing IP(v4 or v6) over IPv6 tunnel.
Thanks
Hangbin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists