Re: [PATCH bpf-next v6 5/6] bpf: Add selftests for raw syncookie helpers

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

 



On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:29 AM Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2022-04-26 09:26, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 5:12 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 08:24:21PM +0300, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
> >>> +void test_xdp_synproxy(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> +     int server_fd = -1, client_fd = -1, accept_fd = -1;
> >>> +     struct nstoken *ns = NULL;
> >>> +     FILE *ctrl_file = NULL;
> >>> +     char buf[1024];
> >>> +     size_t size;
> >>> +
> >>> +     SYS("ip netns add synproxy");
> >>> +
> >>> +     SYS("ip link add tmp0 type veth peer name tmp1");
> >>> +     SYS("ip link set tmp1 netns synproxy");
> >>> +     SYS("ip link set tmp0 up");
> >>> +     SYS("ip addr replace 198.18.0.1/24 dev tmp0");
> >>> +
> >>> +     // When checksum offload is enabled, the XDP program sees wrong
> >>> +     // checksums and drops packets.
> >>> +     SYS("ethtool -K tmp0 tx off");
> >>
> >> BPF CI image doesn't have ethtool installed.
> >> It will take some time to get it updated. Until then we cannot land the patch set.
> >> Can you think of a way to run this test without shelling to ethtool?
> >
> > Good news: we got updated CI image with ethtool, so that shouldn't be
> > a problem anymore.
> >
> > Bad news: this selftest still fails, but in different place:
> >
> > test_synproxy:FAIL:iptables -t raw -I PREROUTING -i tmp1 -p tcp -m tcp
> > --syn --dport 8080 -j CT --notrack unexpected error: 512 (errno 2)
>
> That's simply a matter of missing kernel config options:
>
> CONFIG_NETFILTER_SYNPROXY=y
> CONFIG_NETFILTER_XT_TARGET_CT=y
> CONFIG_NETFILTER_XT_MATCH_STATE=y
> CONFIG_IP_NF_FILTER=y
> CONFIG_IP_NF_TARGET_SYNPROXY=y
> CONFIG_IP_NF_RAW=y
>
> Shall I create a pull request on github to add these options to
> https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/tree/master/travis-ci/vmtest/configs?
>

Yes, please. But also for [0], that's the one that tests all the
not-yet-applied patches

  [0] https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/

> > See [0].
> >
> >    [0] https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/runs/6169439612?check_suite_focus=true
>



[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