On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 15:49, Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/20/20 4:58 AM, Lorenz Bauer wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 21:46, Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/19/20 2:24 AM, Lorenz Bauer wrote:
> >>> Add a test which copies a socket from a sockmap into another sockmap
> >>> or sockhash. This excercises bpf_map_update_elem support from BPF
> >>> context. Compare the socket cookies from source and destination to
> >>> ensure that the copy succeeded.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>> .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_sockmap_copy.c | 48 ++++++++++++
> >>> 2 files changed, 124 insertions(+)
> >>> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sockmap_copy.c
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
> >>> index 96e7b7f84c65..d30cabc00e9e 100644
> >>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
> >>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_basic.c
> >>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> >>>
> >>> #include "test_progs.h"
> >>> #include "test_skmsg_load_helpers.skel.h"
> >>> +#include "test_sockmap_copy.skel.h"
> >>>
> >>> #define TCP_REPAIR 19 /* TCP sock is under repair right now */
> >>>
> >>> @@ -101,6 +102,77 @@ static void test_skmsg_helpers(enum bpf_map_type map_type)
> >>> test_skmsg_load_helpers__destroy(skel);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +static void test_sockmap_copy(enum bpf_map_type map_type)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct bpf_prog_test_run_attr attr;
> >>> + struct test_sockmap_copy *skel;
> >>> + __u64 src_cookie, dst_cookie;
> >>> + int err, prog, s, src, dst;
> >>> + const __u32 zero = 0;
> >>> + char dummy[14] = {0};
> >>> +
> >>> + s = connected_socket_v4();
> >>
> >> Maybe change variable name to "sk" for better clarity?
> >
> > Yup!
> >
> >>
> >>> + if (CHECK_FAIL(s == -1))
> >>> + return;
> >>> +
> >>> + skel = test_sockmap_copy__open_and_load();
> >>> + if (CHECK_FAIL(!skel)) {
> >>> + close(s);
> >>> + perror("test_sockmap_copy__open_and_load");
> >>> + return;
> >>> + }
> >>
> >> Could you use CHECK instead of CHECK_FAIL?
> >> With CHECK, you can print additional information without perror.
> >
> > I avoid CHECK because it requires `duration`, which doesn't make sense
> > for most things that I call CHECK_FAIL on here. So either it outputs 0
> > nsec (which is bogus) or it outputs the value from the last
> > bpf_prog_test_run call (which is also bogus). How do other tests
> > handle this? Just ignore it?
>
> Just ignore it. You can define a static variable duration in the
> beginning of file and then use CHECK in the rest of file.
Ok, will do in v3!
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + prog = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.copy_sock_map);
> >>> + src = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.src);
> >>> + if (map_type == BPF_MAP_TYPE_SOCKMAP)
> >>> + dst = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.dst_sock_map);
> >>> + else
> >>> + dst = bpf_map__fd(skel->maps.dst_sock_hash);
> >>> +
> [...]
--
Lorenz Bauer | Systems Engineer
6th Floor, County Hall/The Riverside Building, SE1 7PB, UK
www.cloudflare.com
