On 8/8/24 14:56, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
On 8/8/24 1:38 PM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
On 8/8/24 13:27, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
On 8/7/24 11:31 AM, Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
+struct netns_obj *netns_new(const char *nsname, bool open)
+{
+ struct netns_obj *netns_obj = malloc(sizeof(*netns_obj));
+ const char *test_name, *subtest_name;
+ int r;
+
+ if (!netns_obj)
+ return NULL;
+ memset(netns_obj, 0, sizeof(*netns_obj));
+
+ netns_obj->nsname = strdup(nsname);
+ if (!netns_obj->nsname)
+ goto fail;
+
+ /* Create the network namespace */
+ r = make_netns(nsname);
+ if (r)
+ goto fail;
+
+ /* Set the network namespace of the current process */
+ if (open) {
+ netns_obj->nstoken = open_netns(nsname);
+ if (!netns_obj->nstoken)
+ goto fail;
+ }
+
+ /* Start traffic monitor */
+ if (env.test->should_tmon ||
+ (env.subtest_state && env.subtest_state->should_tmon)) {
+ test_name = env.test->test_name;
+ subtest_name = env.subtest_state ? env.subtest_state->name
: NULL;
+ netns_obj->tmon = traffic_monitor_start(nsname, test_name,
subtest_name);
The traffic_monitor_start() does open/close_netns(). close_netns()
will restore to the previous netns. Is it better to do
traffic_monitor_start() before the above open_netns() such that we
don't have to worry about the stacking open_netns and which netns the
close_netns will restore?
Do you mean to open_netns() in another thread at the same time and
interleave with the open_netns()/close_netns() pairs in the current
thread?
I didn't mean this case. I don't think there will be a test calling
open/close_nets() in different threads... but will it be an issue?
I was trying to say having the close_netns() restoring to the init_netns
for the common case. Easier for the brain to reason without too much
unnecessary open_netns stacking. Not saying there is an issue in the patch.
Got it!
+ if (!netns_obj->tmon)
+ fprintf(stderr, "Failed to start traffic monitor for
%s\n", nsname);
+ } else {
+ netns_obj->tmon = NULL;
+ }
+
+ system("ip link set lo up");
The "bool open" could be false here. This command could be acted on
the > init_netns and the intention is to set lo up at the newly
created netns.
You are right! I should enclose this call in-between a pair of
open_netns() & close_netns().
I would just move it to make_netns() and do "ip -n nsname link set lo up".
Yes, the traffic_monitor_start() is after the lo is up but I think it is
fine.
Ok!
