Message-ID: <66cf2e4bd8e89_33815c294b2@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 10:03:55 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
 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

Paolo Abeni wrote:
> 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?

The files are created by kselftests, similar to any TEST_GEN_XXX or
TEST_CUSTOM_PROGS.

If instead we prepopulate in each directory that is duplicative
boilerplate committed to git, and we still need to add it to
kselftests. Not sure whether TEST_PROGS with paths extending into
subdirectories are supported. And we do not want a TARGET for each
subdirectory.

It probably can be done, but I don't think that it is needed or
simpler.
 
> > 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 ;)

Very good point, thanks! This is the third packetdrill runner that I'm
writing. I should know this by now.. Let me see whether I can use
run_all.py rather than reinvent the wheel here.
 
> > 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.

Makes sense. Will include.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists