Ido Schimmel
2023-Mar-28 16:40 UTC
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote:> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:44, Ido Schimmel <idosch at nvidia.com> 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. Now the test failed as I expected: # ./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 ] TEST: Locked port dyn FDB [FAIL] Packet not seen on egress after adding dynamic FDB Fixed by: ``` @@ -336,7 +337,7 @@ locked_port_dyn_fdb() 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 $swp1 -c 1 -p 128 -t udp "sp=54321,dp=12345" \ + $MZ $h1 -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_err $? "Packet not seen on egress after adding dynamic FDB" ``` Ran it again and it failed because of the second issue I pointed out: # ./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 ] TEST: Locked port dyn FDB [FAIL] Dynamic FDB entry did not age out Fixed by: ``` @@ -346,7 +347,7 @@ locked_port_dyn_fdb() $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" + check_err $? "Dynamic FDB entry did not age out" ip link set dev br0 type bridge ageing_time $ageing_time bridge link set dev $swp1 learning off locked off ``` # ./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 ] TEST: Locked port dyn FDB [ OK ] Sigh
Hans Schultz
2023-Mar-28 19:30 UTC
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 19:40, Ido Schimmel <idosch at nvidia.com> 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 at nvidia.com> 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?! >Sorry, but I have sent you several emails telling you about the problems I have with running the selftests due to changes in the phy etc. Maybe you have just not received all those emails? Have you checked spamfilters? With the kernels now, I cannot even test with the software bridge and selftests as the compile fails - probably due to changes in uapi headers compared to what the packages my system uses expects.
Hans Schultz
2023-Mar-30 19:07 UTC
[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 19:40, Ido Schimmel <idosch at nvidia.com> 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 at nvidia.com> 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.
Seemingly Similar Threads
- [Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test
- [Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test
- [Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test
- [Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test
- [Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test