| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <da23eb41-f3b6-16cb-def7-c87388c55423@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 12:31:05 +0300
From: Gilad Sever <gilad9366@...il.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc: dsahern@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, daniel@...earbox.net,
john.fastabend@...il.com, ast@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org,
song@...nel.org, yhs@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org, haoluo@...gle.com,
jolsa@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, mykolal@...com,
shuah@...nel.org, hawk@...nel.org, joe@...d.net.nz,
eyal.birger@...il.com, shmulik.ladkani@...il.com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf,v2 4/4] selftests/bpf: Add tc_socket_lookup tests
On 20/04/2023 19:44, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 04/20, Gilad Sever wrote:
>> Verify that socket lookup via TC with all BPF APIs is VRF aware.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gilad Sever <gilad9366@...il.com>
>> ---
>> v2: Fix build by initializing vars with -1
>> ---
>> .../bpf/prog_tests/tc_socket_lookup.c | 341 ++++++++++++++++++
>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/tc_socket_lookup.c | 73 ++++
>> 2 files changed, 414 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_socket_lookup.c
>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/tc_socket_lookup.c
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_socket_lookup.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_socket_lookup.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..5dcaf0ea3f8c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/tc_socket_lookup.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,341 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Topology:
>> + * ---------
>> + * NS1 namespace | NS2 namespace
>> + * |
>> + * +--------------+ | +--------------+
>> + * | veth01 |----------| veth10 |
>> + * | 172.16.1.100 | | | 172.16.1.200 |
>> + * | bpf | | +--------------+
>> + * +--------------+ |
>> + * server(UDP/TCP) |
>> + * +-------------------+ |
>> + * | vrf1 | |
>> + * | +--------------+ | | +--------------+
>> + * | | veth02 |----------| veth20 |
>> + * | | 172.16.2.100 | | | | 172.16.2.200 |
>> + * | | bpf | | | +--------------+
>> + * | +--------------+ | |
>> + * | server(UDP/TCP) | |
>> + * +-------------------+ |
>> + *
>> + * Test flow
>> + * -----------
>> + * The tests verifies that socket lookup via TC is VRF aware:
>> + * 1) Creates two veth pairs between NS1 and NS2:
>> + * a) veth01 <-> veth10 outside the VRF
>> + * b) veth02 <-> veth20 in the VRF
>> + * 2) Attaches to veth01 and veth02 a program that calls:
>> + * a) bpf_skc_lookup_tcp() with TCP and tcp_skc is true
>> + * b) bpf_sk_lookup_tcp() with TCP and tcp_skc is false
>> + * c) bpf_sk_lookup_udp() with UDP
>> + * The program stores the lookup result in bss->lookup_status.
>> + * 3) Creates a socket TCP/UDP server in/outside the VRF.
>> + * 4) The test expects lookup_status to be:
>> + * a) 0 from device in VRF to server outside VRF
>> + * b) 0 from device outside VRF to server in VRF
>> + * c) 1 from device in VRF to server in VRF
>> + * d) 1 from device outside VRF to server outside VRF
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <net/if.h>
>> +
>> +#include "test_progs.h"
>> +#include "network_helpers.h"
>> +#include "tc_socket_lookup.skel.h"
>> +
>> +#define NS1 "tc_socket_lookup_1"
>> +#define NS2 "tc_socket_lookup_2"
>> +
>> +#define IP4_ADDR_VETH01 "172.16.1.100"
>> +#define IP4_ADDR_VETH10 "172.16.1.200"
>> +#define IP4_ADDR_VETH02 "172.16.2.100"
>> +#define IP4_ADDR_VETH20 "172.16.2.200"
>> +
>> +#define NON_VRF_PORT 5000
>> +#define IN_VRF_PORT 5001
>> +
>> +#define IO_TIMEOUT_SEC 3
>> +
>> +#define SYS(fmt, ...) \
>> + ({ \
>> + char cmd[1024]; \
>> + snprintf(cmd, sizeof(cmd), fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(system(cmd), cmd)) \
>> + goto fail; \
>> + })
>> +
>> +#define SYS_NOFAIL(fmt, ...) \
>> + ({ \
>> + char cmd[1024]; \
>> + snprintf(cmd, sizeof(cmd), fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
>> + system(cmd); \
>> + })
> [..]
>
>> +static int make_socket(int sotype, const char *ip, int port,
>> + struct sockaddr_storage *addr)
>> +{
>> + struct timeval timeo = { .tv_sec = IO_TIMEOUT_SEC };
>> + int err, fd;
>> +
>> + err = make_sockaddr(AF_INET, ip, port, addr, NULL);
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "make_address"))
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + fd = socket(AF_INET, sotype, 0);
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(fd < 0, "socket"))
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + err = setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDTIMEO, &timeo, sizeof(timeo));
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "setsockopt(SO_SNDTIMEO)"))
>> + goto fail;
>> +
>> + err = setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO, &timeo, sizeof(timeo));
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "setsockopt(SO_RCVTIMEO)"))
>> + goto fail;
>> +
>> + return fd;
>> +fail:
>> + close(fd);
>> + return -1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int make_server(int sotype, const char *ip, int port, const char *ifname)
>> +{
>> + struct sockaddr_storage addr = {};
>> + const int one = 1;
>> + int err, fd = -1;
>> +
>> + fd = make_socket(sotype, ip, port, &addr);
>> + if (fd < 0)
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + if (sotype == SOCK_STREAM) {
>> + err = setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, &one,
>> + sizeof(one));
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "setsockopt(SO_REUSEADDR)"))
>> + goto fail;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (ifname) {
>> + err = setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BINDTODEVICE,
>> + ifname, strlen(ifname) + 1);
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "setsockopt(SO_BINDTODEVICE)"))
>> + goto fail;
>> + }
>> +
>> + err = bind(fd, (void *)&addr, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in));
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "bind"))
>> + goto fail;
>> +
>> + if (sotype == SOCK_STREAM) {
>> + err = listen(fd, SOMAXCONN);
>> + if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "listen"))
>> + goto fail;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return fd;
>> +fail:
>> + close(fd);
>> + return -1;
>> +}
> Any reason you're not using start_server from network_helpers.h?
> It's because I need to bind the server socket to the VRF device.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists