netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next/net 5/5] selftest: bpf: Add test for SK_BPF_MEMCG_SOCK

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: <CAAVpQUBWsVDu07xrQcqGMo4cHRu41zvb5CWuiUdJx9m6A+_2AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 09:59:27 -0700
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, 
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, 
	Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next/net 5/5] selftest: bpf: Add test for SK_BPF_MEMCG_SOCK_ISOLATED.

On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 1:49 PM Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 1:26 PM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/28/25 6:00 PM, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > > The test does the following for IPv4/IPv6 x TCP/UDP sockets
> > > with/without BPF prog.
> > >
> > >    1. Create socket pairs
> > >    2. Send a bunch of data that requires more than 256 pages
> > >    3. Read memory_allocated from the 3rd column in /proc/net/protocols
> > >    4. Check if unread data is charged to memory_allocated
> > >
> > > If BPF prog is attached, memory_allocated should not be changed,
> > > but we allow a small error (up to 10 pages) in case other processes
> > > on the host use some amounts of TCP/UDP memory.
> > >
> > > At 2., the test actually sends more than 1024 pages because the sysctl
> > > net.core.mem_pcpu_rsv is 256 is by default, which means 256 pages are
> > > buffered per cpu before reporting to sk->sk_prot->memory_allocated.
> > >
> > >    BUF_SINGLE (1024) * NR_SEND (64) * NR_SOCKETS (64) / 4096
> > >    = 1024 pages
> > >
> > > When I reduced it to 512 pages, the following assertion for the
> > > non-isolated case got flaky.
> > >
> > >    ASSERT_GT(memory_allocated[1], memory_allocated[0] + 256, ...)
> > >
> > > Another contributor to slowness is 150ms sleep to make sure 1 RCU
> > > grace period passes because UDP recv queue is destroyed after that.
> >
> > There is a kern_sync_rcu() in testing_helpers.c.
>
> Nice helper :)  Will use it.
>
> >
> > >
> > >    # time ./test_progs -t sk_memcg
> > >    #370/1   sk_memcg/TCP       :OK
> > >    #370/2   sk_memcg/UDP       :OK
> > >    #370/3   sk_memcg/TCPv6     :OK
> > >    #370/4   sk_memcg/UDPv6     :OK
> > >    #370     sk_memcg:OK
> > >    Summary: 1/4 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
> > >
> > >    real       0m1.214s
> > >    user       0m0.014s
> > >    sys        0m0.318s
> >
> > Thanks. It finished much faster in my setup also comparing with the earlier
> > revision. However, it is a bit flaky when I run it in a loop:
> >
> > check_isolated:FAIL:not isolated unexpected not isolated: actual 861 <= expected 861
> >
> > I usually can hit this at ~40-th iteration.
>
> Oh.. I tested ~10 times manually but will try in a tight loop.

This didn't reproduce on my QEMU with/without --enable-kvm.

Changing the assert from _GT to _GE will address the very case
above, but I'm not sure if it's enough.

Does the bpf CI run tests repeatedly or is this only a manual
scenario ?