netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 8/8] selftests/bpf: introduce XDP compliance test tool

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: <874jsblv9h.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2023 18:52:58 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, hawk@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, memxor@...il.com, alardam@...il.com,
        saeedm@...dia.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, gospo@...adcom.com,
        vladimir.oltean@....com, nbd@....name, john@...ozen.org,
        leon@...nel.org, simon.horman@...igine.com, aelior@...vell.com,
        christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr, ecree.xilinx@...il.com,
        mst@...hat.com, bjorn@...nel.org, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
        maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com, martin.lau@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 8/8] selftests/bpf: introduce XDP compliance
 test tool

Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> writes:

>> > > +
>> > > +   ctrl_sockfd = accept(sockfd, (struct sockaddr *)&ctrl_addr, &len);
>> > > +   if (ctrl_sockfd < 0) {
>> > > +           fprintf(stderr, "Failed to accept connection on DUT socket\n");
>> > > +           close(sockfd);
>> > > +           return -errno;
>> > > +   }
>> > > +
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >
>> > There is also connect_to_fd, maybe we can use that? It should take
>> > care of the timeouts.. (requires plumbing server_fd, not sure whether
>> > it's a problem or not)
>>
>> please correct me if I am wrong, but in order to have server_fd it is mandatory
>> both tester and DUT are running on the same process, right? Here, I guess 99% of
>> the times DUT and tester will run on two separated devices. Agree?
>
> Yes, it's targeting more the case where you have a server fd and a
> bunch of clients in the same process. But I think it's still usable in
> your case, you're not using fork() anywhere afaict, so even if these
> are separate devices, connect_to_fd should still work. (unless I'm
> missing something, haven't looked too closely)

Just to add a bit of context here, "separate devices" can refer to the
hosts as well as the netdevs. I.e., it should also be possible to run
this in a mode where the client bit runs on a different physical machine
than the server bit (as it will not be feasible in any case to connect
things with loopback cables).

-Toke