On 5/19/20 12:17 AM, Andrey Ignatov wrote:
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [Mon, 2020-05-18 08:35 -0700]:
Extend the existing connect_force_port test to assert get{peer,sock}name programs
as well. The workflow for e.g. IPv4 is as follows: i) server binds to concrete
port, ii) client calls getsockname() on server fd which exposes 1.2.3.4:60000 to
client, iii) client connects to service address 1.2.3.4:60000 binds to concrete
local address (127.0.0.1:22222) and remaps service address to a concrete backend
address (127.0.0.1:60123), iv) client then calls getsockname() on its own fd to
verify local address (127.0.0.1:22222) and getpeername() on its own fd which then
publishes service address (1.2.3.4:60000) instead of actual backend. Same workflow
is done for IPv6 just with different address/port tuples.
# ./test_progs -t connect_force_port
#14 connect_force_port:OK
Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andrey Ignatov <rdna@xxxxxx>
---
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/network_helpers.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/network_helpers.c
@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
+#include <arpa/inet.h>
+
#include <sys/epoll.h>
#include <linux/err.h>
@@ -35,7 +37,7 @@ struct ipv6_packet pkt_v6 = {
.tcp.doff = 5,
};
-int start_server(int family, int type)
+int start_server_with_port(int family, int type, int port)
Nit: IMO it's worth to start using __u16 for ports in new places,
especially since this network helper can be adopted by many tests in the
future. I know 4-byte int-s are used for ports even in UAPI, but IMO it
just adds confusion and complicates implementation in both kernel and
user BPF programs.
Ok, makes sense, I'll change the signature to __u16 port in a v2.
Thanks,
Daniel
