Jakub Kicinski wrote: > Very exciting to see packetdrill tests making their way upstream! > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:32:29 -0400 Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > RFC points for discussion > > > > ksft: the choice for this python framework introduces a dependency on > > the YNL scripts, and some non-obvious code: > > - to include the net/lib dep in tools/testing/selftests/Makefile > > - a boilerplate lib/py/__init__.py that each user of ksft will need > > It seems preferable to me to use ksft.py over reinventing the wheel, > > e.g., to print KTAP output. But perhaps we can make it more obvious > > for future ksft users, and make the dependency on YNL optional. > > No preference here, the wrapper script uses little of the python > code, and use of YNL seems unlikely, so it's a coin toss whether > it's worth linking up to net/lib/py or just writing a bit of bash. > > > kselftest-per-directory: copying packetdrill_ksft.py to create a > > separate script per dir is a bit of a hack. A single script is much > > simpler, optionally with nested KTAP (not supported yet by ksft). But, > > I'm afraid that running time without intermediate output will be very > > long when we integrate all packetdrill scripts. > > Not sure what you mean by intermediate output (the perl wrapper prints > immediately, do you have perl?). We do have some nested ktap parsing > in nipa, but small tweaks would be necessary to "decapsulate" the first > layer completely. My bigger concern would be runtime, if the time it > takes to run all tests grows we spawn multiple VMs and load balance > the test cases. > > All in all, trying to support single script is probably not worth the > extra effort. > > > nf_conntrack: we can dedup the common.sh. > > > > *pkt files: which of the 150+ scripts on github are candidates for > > kselftests, all or a subset? To avoid change detector tests. > > Other than avoiding known flakes - no concerns. Is the distinction > between "change detector" vs hard tests (uAPI change / RFC compliance), > well defined? Not sure if that's really possible but if so it would be > nice to "sort" the tests into different dirs. It's not as clear-cut as API/RFC. The major change detector issues are with timing, as packetdrill scripts have timestamped lines. I think usec TCP timestamps were an issue at some point. On-going is that we increase allowed variance on debug builds. Note to self that that is missing here. I think that all tests we open sourced to github so far were chosen to be robust. Will double check and err on the side of caution. > > And what > > is the best way to eventually send up to 150 files, 7K LoC. > > Just send them, slice into a handful (<10) of patches if you can. > 7k LoC is same order of magnitude as initial drivers we merge. > > To be clear let's start with a small patch like this one. > Since this is a new target I'll have to reconfigure the runners. > So we'll see how well this works once it's merged. > Spinning up new runners is a bit tedious but here new target seems > quite justified. Ack. Thanks for that guidance. > > tools/testing/selftests/Makefile | 7 +- > > .../selftests/net/packetdrill/.gitignore | 1 + > > .../selftests/net/packetdrill/Makefile | 28 ++++++ > > .../net/packetdrill/lib/py/__init__.py | 15 ++++ > > .../net/packetdrill/packetdrill_ksft.py | 90 +++++++++++++++++++ > > .../net/packetdrill/tcp/common/defaults.sh | 63 +++++++++++++ > > .../net/packetdrill/tcp/common/set_sysctls.py | 38 ++++++++ > > .../net/packetdrill/tcp/inq/client.pkt | 51 +++++++++++ > > .../net/packetdrill/tcp/inq/server.pkt | 51 +++++++++++ > > .../tcp/md5/md5-only-on-client-ack.pkt | 28 ++++++ > > prolly need a config file to enable kconfig for MD5 ? > perils of adding new targets > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/.gitignore b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/.gitignore > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000000..a40f1a600eb94 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/.gitignore > > @@ -0,0 +1 @@ > > +tcp*sh > > Is this right or should it be tcp_*.py ? > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/Makefile > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000000..d94c51098d1f0 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/Makefile > > @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > Would be nice to add a few lines here with an overview of how the > packetdrill tests get executed. People may jump in here to try to > add new tests, since that's how ksft usually operates. > > > +def scriptname_to_testdir(filepath): > > + """Extract the directory to run from this filename.""" > > + > > + suffix = ".sh" > > .sh again ? > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/tcp/common/defaults.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/tcp/common/defaults.sh > > > +# Override the default qdisc on the tun device. > > +# Many tests fail with timing errors if the default > > +# is FQ and that paces their flows. > > +tc qdisc add dev tun0 root pfifo > > + > > nit: double new line > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/tcp/common/set_sysctls.py b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/tcp/common/set_sysctls.py > > new file mode 100755 > > index 0000000000000..5ddf456ae973a > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/tcp/common/set_sysctls.py > > What calls this one? I can't grep it out. Whoops. I changed test directories and apparently these ones don't rely on this. Thanks for the review. I'll take a quick stab at a standalone script to see whether that is easier. Else will resubmit with these and Paolo's feedback addressed. In particular to Paolo's feedback: running multiple tests in parallel like run_all.py can. Come to think of it, maybe I should import run_all.py, modifying it to output KTAP and ksft return codes.
