On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 19:40, Ido Schimmel <idosch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:44, Ido Schimmel <idosch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> + $MZ $swp1 -c 1 -p 128 -t udp "sp=54321,dp=12345" \ >> >> + -a $mac -b `mac_get $h2` -A 192.0.2.1 -B 192.0.2.2 -q >> >> + tc_check_packets "dev $swp2 egress" 1 1 >> >> + check_fail $? "Dynamic FDB entry did not age out" >> > >> > Shouldn't this be check_err()? After the FDB entry was aged you want to >> > make sure that packets received via $swp1 with SMAC being $mac are no >> > longer forwarded by the bridge. >> >> I was thinking that check_fail() will pass when tc_check_packets() does >> not see any packets, thus the test passing here when no packets are forwarded? > > What do you mean by "I was *thinking*"? How is it possible that you are > submitting a selftest that you didn't bother running?! > > I see you trimmed my earlier question: "Does this actually work?" > > I tried it and it passed: > > # ./bridge_locked_port.sh > TEST: Locked port ipv4 [ OK ] > TEST: Locked port ipv6 [ OK ] > TEST: Locked port vlan [ OK ] > TEST: Locked port MAB [ OK ] > TEST: Locked port MAB roam [ OK ] > TEST: Locked port MAB configuration [ OK ] > TEST: Locked port MAB FDB flush [ OK ] > > And I couldn't understand how that's even possible. Then I realized that > the entire test is dead code because the patch is missing this > fundamental hunk: > > ``` > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh > index dbc7017fd45d..5bf6b2aa1098 100755 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ ALL_TESTS=" > locked_port_mab_roam > locked_port_mab_config > locked_port_mab_flush > + locked_port_dyn_fdb > " > > NUM_NETIFS=4 > ``` > > Which tells me that you didn't even try running it once. Not true, it reveals that I forgot to put it in the patch, that's all. As I cannot run several of these tests because of memory constraints I link the file to a copy in a rw area where I modify the list and just run one of the subtests at a time. If I try to run the whole it always fails after a couple of sub-tests with an error. It seems to me that these scripts are quite memory consuming as they accumulate memory consuption in relation to what is loaded along the way. A major problem with my system.
