On 03/19, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 6:21 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Now that we have __flow_bpf_dissect which works on raw data (by
> > constructing temporary on-stack skb), use it when doing
> > BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN for flow dissector.
> >
> > This should help us catch any possible bugs due to missing shinfo on
> > the per-cpu skb.
> >
> > Note that existing __skb_flow_bpf_dissect swallows L2 headers and returns
> > nhoff=0, we need to preserve the existing behavior.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > net/bpf/test_run.c | 48 ++++++++++++++--------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> >
>
> > @@ -300,9 +277,13 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_flow_dissector(struct bpf_prog *prog,
> > preempt_disable();
> > time_start = ktime_get_ns();
> > for (i = 0; i < repeat; i++) {
> > - retval = bpf_flow_dissect_skb(prog, skb,
> > - &flow_keys_dissector,
> > - &flow_keys);
> > + retval = bpf_flow_dissect(prog, data, eth->h_proto, ETH_HLEN,
> > + size, &flow_keys_dissector,
> > + &flow_keys);
> > + if (flow_keys.nhoff >= ETH_HLEN)
> > + flow_keys.nhoff -= ETH_HLEN;
> > + if (flow_keys.thoff >= ETH_HLEN)
> > + flow_keys.thoff -= ETH_HLEN;
>
> why are these conditional?
Hm, I didn't want these to be negative, because bpf flow program can set
them to zero and clamp_flow_keys makes sure they are in a "sensible"
range. For this particular case, I think we need to amend
clamp_flow_keys to make sure that flow_keys.nhoff is in the range of
initial_nhoff..hlen, not 0..hlen (and then we can drop these checks).
