netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: fix ct status check in bpf

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: <CAPhsuW4Vcn4GELkKWNdb+X4L+KfdtOiHqN0VijhWy+vLjvD74g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 18:04:18 -0700
From:   Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To:     Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, pablo@...filter.org,
        fw@...len.de, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: fix ct status check in bpf_nf selftests

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 3:56 AM Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Check properly the connection tracking entry status configured running
> bpf_ct_change_status kfunc.
> Remove unnecessary IPS_CONFIRMED status configuration since it is
> already done during entry allocation.
>
> Fixes: 6eb7fba007a7 ("selftests/bpf: Add tests for new nf_conntrack kfuncs")
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c | 4 ++--
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c | 8 +++++---
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
> index 544bf90ac2a7..903d16e3abed 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
> @@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ static void test_bpf_nf_ct(int mode)
>         /* allow some tolerance for test_delta_timeout value to avoid races. */
>         ASSERT_GT(skel->bss->test_delta_timeout, 8, "Test for min ct timeout update");
>         ASSERT_LE(skel->bss->test_delta_timeout, 10, "Test for max ct timeout update");
> -       /* expected status is IPS_SEEN_REPLY */
> -       ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_status, 2, "Test for ct status update ");
> +       /* expected status is IPS_CONFIRMED | IPS_SEEN_REPLY */
> +       ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_status, 0xa, "Test for ct status update ");

Why do we use 0xa instead of IPS_CONFIRMED | IPS_SEEN_REPLY?
To avoid dependency on the header file?

Thanks,
Song