Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 3/6] selftests/bpf: netns_new() and netns_free() helpers.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





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!




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux