On 2022-09-21 09:15, Ido Schimmel wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 11:29:12PM +0200, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
I have made a blackhole selftest, which looks like this:
test_blackhole_fdb()
{
RET=0
check_blackhole_fdb_support || return 0
tcpdump_start $h2
$MZ $h1 -q -t udp -a $h1 -b $h2
I don't think you can give an interface name to '-a' and '-b'?
tcpdump_stop
tcpdump_show | grep -q udp
check_err $? "test_blackhole_fdb: No packet seen on initial"
tcpdump_cleanup
bridge fdb add `mac_get $h2` dev br0 blackhole
bridge fdb show dev br0 | grep -q "blackhole"
Make this grep more specific so that we are sure it is the entry user
space installed. Something like this:
bridge fdb get `mac_get $h2` br br0 | grep -q blackhole
check_err $? "test_blackhole_fdb: No blackhole FDB entry
found"
tcpdump_start $h2
$MZ $h1 -q -t udp -a $h1 -b $h2
tcpdump_stop
tcpdump_show | grep -q udp
check_fail $? "test_blackhole_fdb: packet seen with blackhole
fdb
entry"
tcpdump_cleanup
The tcpdump filter is not specific enough. It can catch other UDP
packets (e.g., multicast) being received by $h2. Anyway, to be sure the
feature works as expected we need to make sure that the packets are not
even egressing $swp2. Checking that they are not received by $h2 is not
enough. See this (untested) suggestion [1] that uses a tc filter on the
egress of $swp2.
bridge fdb del `mac_get $h2` dev br0 blackhole
bridge fdb show dev br0 | grep -q "blackhole"
check_fail $? "test_blackhole_fdb: Blackhole FDB entry not
deleted"
tcpdump_start $h2
$MZ $h1 -q -t udp -a $h1 -b $h2
tcpdump_stop
tcpdump_show | grep -q udp
check_err $? "test_blackhole_fdb: No packet seen after
removing
blackhole FDB entry"
tcpdump_cleanup
log_test "Blackhole FDB entry test"
}
the setup is simple and is the same as in bridge_sticky_fdb.sh.
Does the test look sound or is there obvious mistakes?
[1]
blackhole_fdb()
{
RET=0
tc filter add dev $swp2 egress protocol ip pref 1 handle 1 flower \
dst_ip 192.0.2.2 ip_proto udp dst_port 12345 action pass
$MZ $h1 -c 1 -p 128 -t udp "sp=54321,dp=12345" \
-a own -b `mac_get $h2` -A 192.0.2.1 -B 192.0.2.2 -q
tc_check_packets "dev $swp2 egress" 1 1
check_err $? "Packet not seen on egress before adding blackhole entry"
bridge fdb add `mac_get $h2` dev br0 blackhole
bridge fdb get `mac_get $h2` br br0 | grep -q blackhole
check_err $? "Blackhole entry not found"
$MZ $h1 -c 1 -p 128 -t udp "sp=54321,dp=12345" \
-a own -b `mac_get $h2` -A 192.0.2.1 -B 192.0.2.2 -q
tc_check_packets "dev $swp2 egress" 1 1
check_err $? "Packet seen on egress after adding blackhole entry"
# Check blackhole entries can be replaced.
bridge fdb replace `mac_get $h2` dev $swp2 master static
bridge fdb get `mac_get $h2` br br0 | grep -q blackhole
check_fail $? "Blackhole entry found after replacement"
$MZ $h1 -c 1 -p 128 -t udp "sp=54321,dp=12345" \
-a own -b `mac_get $h2` -A 192.0.2.1 -B 192.0.2.2 -q
tc_check_packets "dev $swp2 egress" 1 2
check_err $? "Packet not seen on egress after replacing blackhole
entry"
bridge fdb del `mac_get $h2` dev $swp2 master static
tc filter del dev $swp2 egress protocol ip pref 1 handle 1 flower
log_test "Blackhole FDB entry"
}
Thx, looks good.
I have tried to run the test as far as I can manually, but I don't seem
to have 'busywait' in the system, which tc_check_packets() depends on,
and I couldn't find any 'busywait' in Buildroot.
