Message-ID: <401f173b-3465-428d-9b90-b87a76a39cc8@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 10:20:31 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
 ncardwell@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 fw@...len.de, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
 "Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)" <matttbe@...nel.org>, martineau@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC] selftests/net: integrate packetdrill with
 ksft

Adding Mat(s) for awareness, it would be great (but difficult) to have 
mptcp too in the long run ;)

On 8/27/24 21:32, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> 
> Lay the groundwork to import into kselftests the over 150 packetdrill
> TCP/IP conformance tests on github.com/google/packetdrill.
> 
> Florian recently added support for packetdrill tests in nf_conntrack,Addin
> in commit a8a388c2aae49 ("selftests: netfilter: add packetdrill based
> conntrack tests").
> 
> This patch takes a slightly different implementation and reuses the
> ksft python library for its KTAP, ksft, NetNS and other such tooling.
> 
> It also anticipates the large number of testcases, by creating a
> separate kselftest for each feature (directory). It does this by
> copying the template script packetdrill_ksft.py for each directory,
> and putting those in TEST_CUSTOM_PROGS so that kselftests runs each.
> 
> To demonstrate the code with minimal patch size, initially import only
> two features/directories from github. One with a single script, and
> one with two. This was the only reason to pick tcp/inq and tcp/md5.
> 
> Any future imports of packetdrill tests should require no additional
> coding. Just add the tcp/$FEATURE directory with *.pkt files.
> 
> Implementation notes:
> - restore alphabetical order when adding the new directory to
>    tools/testing/selftests/Makefile
> - copied *.pkt files and support verbatim from the github project,
>    except for
>      - update common/defaults.sh path (there are two paths on github)
>      - add SPDX headers
>      - remove one author statement
>      - Acknowledgment: drop an e (checkpatch)
> 
> Tested:
> 	make -C tools/testing/selftests/ \
> 	  TARGETS=net/packetdrill \
> 	  install INSTALL_PATH=$KSFT_INSTALL_PATH
> 
> 	# in virtme-ng
> 	sudo ./run_kselftest.sh -c net/packetdrill
> 	sudo ./run_kselftest.sh -t net/packetdrill:tcp_inq.py
> 
> Result:
> 	kselftest: Running tests in net/packetdrill
> 	TAP version 13
> 	1..2
> 	# timeout set to 45
> 	# selftests: net/packetdrill: tcp_inq.py
> 	# KTAP version 1
> 	# 1..4
> 	# ok 1 tcp_inq.client-v4
> 	# ok 2 tcp_inq.client-v6
> 	# ok 3 tcp_inq.server-v4
> 	# ok 4 tcp_inq.server-v6
> 	# # Totals: pass:4 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> 	ok 1 selftests: net/packetdrill: tcp_inq.py
> 	# timeout set to 45
> 	# selftests: net/packetdrill: tcp_md5.py
> 	# KTAP version 1
> 	# 1..2
> 	# ok 1 tcp_md5.md5-only-on-client-ack-v4
> 	# ok 2 tcp_md5.md5-only-on-client-ack-v6
> 	# # Totals: pass:2 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> 	ok 2 selftests: net/packetdrill: tcp_md5.py
> 
> Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> 
> ---
> 
> RFC points for discussion
> 
> ksft: the choice for this python framework introduces a dependency on
> the YNL scripts, and some non-obvious code:
> - to include the net/lib dep in tools/testing/selftests/Makefile
> - a boilerplate lib/py/__init__.py that each user of ksft will need
> It seems preferable to me to use ksft.py over reinventing the wheel,
> e.g., to print KTAP output. But perhaps we can make it more obvious
> for future ksft users, and make the dependency on YNL optional.
> 
> kselftest-per-directory: copying packetdrill_ksft.py to create a
> separate script per dir is a bit of a hack. 

Additionally, in some setups the test directory is RO, avoding file 
creation there would be better.

What about placing in each subdiretory a trivial wrapper invoking the 
'main' packetdrill_ksft.py script specifying as an argument the 
(sub-)directory to run/process?

> A single script is much
> simpler, optionally with nested KTAP (not supported yet by ksft). But,
> I'm afraid that running time without intermediate output will be very
> long when we integrate all packetdrill scripts.

If I read correctly, this runs the scripts in the given directory 
sequentially (as opposed to the default pktdrill run_all.py behavior 
that uses many concurrent threads).

I guess/fear that running all the pktdrill tests in a single batch would 
take quite a long time, which in turn could be not so good for CI 
integration. Currently there are a couple of CI test-cases with runtime 
 > 1h, but that is bad ;)

> nf_conntrack: we can dedup the common.sh.
> 
> *pkt files: which of the 150+ scripts on github are candidates for
> kselftests, all or a subset? To avoid change detector tests. And what
> is the best way to eventually send up to 150 files, 7K LoC.

I have no idea WRT the overall test stability, is some specific case/dir 
is subject to very frequent false positive/false negative we could 
postpone importing them, but ideally IMHO all the github scripts are 
good candidates.

Side note: I think it would be great to have some easy command line 
parameter to run only the specified script/test-case.

Thanks!

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists