[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250506061125.1a244d12@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 06:11:25 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc: netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
fw@...len.de, horms@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next 2/7] selftests: netfilter: add conntrack stress
test
On Tue, 6 May 2025 01:41:46 +0200 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
>
> Add a new test case to check:
> - conntrack_max limit is effective
> - conntrack_max limit cannot be exceeded from within a netns
> - resizing the hash table while packets are inflight works
> - removal of all conntrack rules disables conntrack in netns
> - conntrack tool dump (conntrack -L) returns expected number
> of (unique) entries
> - procfs interface - if available - has same number of entries
> as conntrack -L dump
>
> Expected output with selftest framework:
> selftests: net/netfilter: conntrack_resize.sh
> PASS: got 1 connections: netns conntrack_max is pernet bound
> PASS: got 100 connections: netns conntrack_max is init_net bound
> PASS: dump in netns had same entry count (-C 1778, -L 1778, -p 1778, /proc 0)
> PASS: dump in netns had same entry count (-C 2000, -L 2000, -p 2000, /proc 0)
> PASS: test parallel conntrack dumps
> PASS: resize+flood
> PASS: got 0 connections: conntrack disabled
> PASS: got 1 connections: conntrack enabled
> ok 1 selftests: net/netfilter: conntrack_resize.sh
This test seems quite flaky on debug kernels:
https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/contest.html?test=conntrack-resize-sh&executor=vmksft-nf-dbg
# FAIL: proc inconsistency after uniq filter for nsclient2-whtRtS: 1968 != 1945
Powered by blists - more mailing lists