netdev - Re: net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: getting the first selftests to pass

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]
Message-ID: <7dba0e0b-b3d8-a40e-23dd-3cc7999b8fc4@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:07:51 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...il.com, olteanv@...il.com,
        Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
        Aleksander Jan Bajkowski <olek2@...pl>
Subject: Re: net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: getting the first selftests to pass

On 7/27/22 13:36, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> there are some pending issues with the Lantiq GSWIP driver.
> Vladimir suggested to get the kernel selftests to pass in a first step.
> I am starting with
> tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/dsa/local_termination.sh as my
> understanding is that this contains the most basic tests and should be
> the first step.

Since I am in the process of re-designing my test rack at home with DSA devices, how do you run the selftests out of curiosity? Is there a nice diagram that explains how to get a physical connection set-up?

I used to have between 2 and 4 Ethernet controllers dedicated to each port of the switch of the DUT so I could run bridge/standalone/bandwidth testing but I feel like this is a tad extreme and am cutting down on the number of Ethernet ports so I can put NVMe drives in the machine instead.

Thanks!

> 
> The good news is that not all tests are broken!
> There are eight tests which are not passing. Those eight can be split
> into two groups of four, because it's the same four tests that are
> failing for "standalone" and "bridge" interfaces:
> - Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address
> - Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address, allmulti
> - Multicast IPv4 to unknown group
> - Multicast IPv6 to unknown group
> 
> What they all have in common is the fact that we're expecting that no
> packets are received. But in reality packets are received. I manually
> confirmed this by examining the tcpdump file which is generated by the
> selftests.
> 
> Vladimir suggested in [0]:
>> [...] we'll need to make smaller steps, like disable address
>> learning on standalone ports, isolate FDBs, maybe offload the bridge TX
>> forwarding process (in order to populate the "Force no learning" bit in
>> tag_gswip.c properly), and only then will the local_termination test
>> also pass [...]
> 
> Based on the failing tests I am wondering which step would be a good
> one to start with.
> Is this problem that the selftests are seeing a flooding issue? In
> that case I suspect that the "interesting behavior" (of the GSWIP's
> flooding behavior) that Vladimir described in [1] would be a starting
> point.
> 
> Full local_termination.sh selftest output:
> TEST: lan2: Unicast IPv4 to primary MAC address                 [ OK ]
> TEST: lan2: Unicast IPv4 to macvlan MAC address                 [ OK ]
> TEST: lan2: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address                 [FAIL]
>         reception succeeded, but should have failed
> TEST: lan2: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address, promisc        [ OK ]
> TEST: lan2: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address, allmulti       [FAIL]
>         reception succeeded, but should have failed
> TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv4 to joined group                      [ OK ]
> TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv4 to unknown group                     [FAIL]
>         reception succeeded, but should have failed
> TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv4 to unknown group, promisc            [ OK ]
> TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv4 to unknown group, allmulti           [ OK ]
> TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv6 to joined group                      [ OK ]
> TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv6 to unknown group                     [FAIL]
>         reception succeeded, but should have failed
> TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv6 to unknown group, promisc            [ OK ]
> TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv6 to unknown group, allmulti           [ OK ]
> TEST: br0: Unicast IPv4 to primary MAC address                  [ OK ]
> TEST: br0: Unicast IPv4 to macvlan MAC address                  [ OK ]
> TEST: br0: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address                  [FAIL]
>         reception succeeded, but should have failed
> TEST: br0: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address, promisc         [ OK ]
> TEST: br0: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address, allmulti        [FAIL]
>         reception succeeded, but should have failed
> TEST: br0: Multicast IPv4 to joined group                       [ OK ]
> TEST: br0: Multicast IPv4 to unknown group                      [FAIL]
>         reception succeeded, but should have failed
> TEST: br0: Multicast IPv4 to unknown group, promisc             [ OK ]
> TEST: br0: Multicast IPv4 to unknown group, allmulti            [ OK ]
> TEST: br0: Multicast IPv6 to joined group                       [ OK ]
> TEST: br0: Multicast IPv6 to unknown group                      [FAIL]
>         reception succeeded, but should have failed
> TEST: br0: Multicast IPv6 to unknown group, promisc             [ OK ]
> TEST: br0: Multicast IPv6 to unknown group, allmulti            [ OK ]
> 
> 
> Thank you!
> Best regards,
> Martin
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220706210651.ozvjcwwp2hquzmhn@skbuf/
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220702185652.dpzrxuitacqp6m3t@skbuf/


-- 
Florian