> On Sep 15, 2020, at 9:35 AM, Nicolas Rybowski <nicolas.rybowski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Song,
>
> Thanks for the feedback !
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 8:07 PM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 8:02 AM Nicolas Rybowski
>> <nicolas.rybowski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch adds a base for MPTCP specific tests.
>>>
>>> It is currently limited to the is_mptcp field in case of plain TCP
>>> connection because for the moment there is no easy way to get the subflow
>>> sk from a msk in userspace. This implies that we cannot lookup the
>>> sk_storage attached to the subflow sk in the sockops program.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Rybowski <nicolas.rybowski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@xxxxxx>
>>
>> With some nitpicks below.
>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>> v1 -> v2:
>>> - new patch: mandatory selftests (Alexei)
>>>
>> [...]
>>> int timeout_ms);
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..0e65d64868e9
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>> +#include <test_progs.h>
>>> +#include "cgroup_helpers.h"
>>> +#include "network_helpers.h"
>>> +
>>> +struct mptcp_storage {
>>> + __u32 invoked;
>>> + __u32 is_mptcp;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static int verify_sk(int map_fd, int client_fd, const char *msg, __u32 is_mptcp)
>>> +{
>>> + int err = 0, cfd = client_fd;
>>> + struct mptcp_storage val;
>>> +
>>> + /* Currently there is no easy way to get back the subflow sk from the MPTCP
>>> + * sk, thus we cannot access here the sk_storage associated to the subflow
>>> + * sk. Also, there is no sk_storage associated with the MPTCP sk since it
>>> + * does not trigger sockops events.
>>> + * We silently pass this situation at the moment.
>>> + */
>>> + if (is_mptcp == 1)
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + if (CHECK_FAIL(bpf_map_lookup_elem(map_fd, &cfd, &val) < 0)) {
>>> + perror("Failed to read socket storage");
>>
>> Maybe simplify this with CHECK(), which contains a customized error message?
>> Same for some other calls.
>>
>
> The whole logic here is strongly inspired from prog_tests/tcp_rtt.c
> where CHECK_FAIL is used.
> Also the CHECK macro will print a PASS message on successful map
> lookup, which is not expected at this point of the tests.
> I think it would be more interesting to leave it as it is to keep a
> cohesion between TCP and MPTCP selftests. What do you think?
I guess CHECK_FAIL makes sense when we don't need the PASS message.
Let's keep this part as-is then.
Thanks,
Song
