From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailtransmit05.runbox.com (mailtransmit05.runbox.com [185.226.149.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAAD11C36; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 12:33:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.226.149.38 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744806815; cv=none; b=PZVySl7vPxudURleQooQDkYrvV287JERTe/dQMr4Tgygw85OPjtJhG0TtdCtVaZz4rtc8M0bhAn32Ezwtb1YGTkg/WY/6hU3auwFOUO9YEA1wd9EcsPiPlepvV85OrqTRYzBnXYsB0rHJWeWV3j5AbpkJI29WARoLCexuQAXcqM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744806815; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9d94ym3bPDNkwZlJGX1nTqM8nOdX3wW3K5m0RSRbFEs=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Q9uR65j0AwVgVlnqbm6Hg96T0mk6k/Bm8RYk7794czn/TWnBhJhf1rE1i6TRgQeqzsVpI+wLst8AeW858Bh1X7pGLDHwmKG0WfarKPmjp2a40/TzcLRSm9+cGLfTDuazRMW7u+j4noztW3B/dvdVHeqdAfEWg/UPn+VSxCQNhsM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=rbox.co; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rbox.co; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rbox.co header.i=@rbox.co header.b=FZ0weLGh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.226.149.38 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=rbox.co Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rbox.co Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rbox.co header.i=@rbox.co header.b="FZ0weLGh" Received: from mailtransmit03.runbox ([10.9.9.163] helo=aibo.runbox.com) by mailtransmit05.runbox.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1u51xD-002cmR-8E; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 14:33:23 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rbox.co; s=selector1; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References: Cc:To:Subject:From:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID; bh=V1Q5znUGpZkb+vVcXtQ/KxHIEvFXCx3Bs5in36njKjM=; b=FZ0weLGhuMgVgOKLyimlvfC4+o WbZyd74vpg0y8hU5z9m79uce8y0DCtW74FHTQulxV7vV9clAOsJ0QCBSGiN5xKrZNdNNXNDch8dpT /ZSytHJGrekPchJ8DDnJl1GSjanx8QtTcS1F07gUeocY37RvCNsoChz1fLtuWn9HETA5QYbD8nL+M 5da01vX+RWqat3xwgiQB5a2nGUPeqF4IyShRB7oAKKc+PLA+hTr+8STvnlAegNo+aGcoCv74p6ImM qcbNsW1TjoB3xytj0jvrd3kBa9/v2KsiQURmHYm0f41NZWIft6IngVSFk/U+1U2COV64rjmYACWKX 3zDondXg==; Received: from [10.9.9.73] (helo=submission02.runbox) by mailtransmit03.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1u51xC-0000hv-T6; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 14:33:23 +0200 Received: by submission02.runbox with esmtpsa [Authenticated ID (604044)] (TLS1.2:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.93) id 1u51xB-008Dyl-Pm; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 14:33:21 +0200 Message-ID: <66bf942f-dfdb-4ce9-bd95-8b734e7afa53@rbox.co> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 14:33:20 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Michal Luczaj Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 5/9] selftests/bpf: Add selftest for sockmap/hashmap redirection To: Jiayuan Chen Cc: Andrii Nakryiko , Eduard Zingerman , Mykola Lysenko , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Martin KaFai Lau , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , John Fastabend , KP Singh , Stanislav Fomichev , Hao Luo , Jiri Olsa , Shuah Khan , Jonathan Corbet , bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Sitnicki References: <20250411-selftests-sockmap-redir-v2-0-5f9b018d6704@rbox.co> <20250411-selftests-sockmap-redir-v2-5-5f9b018d6704@rbox.co> Content-Language: pl-PL, en-GB In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/11/25 16:31, Jiayuan Chen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 01:32:41PM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote: >> +static void test_send_redir_recv(int sd_send, int send_flags, int sd_peer, >> + int sd_in, int sd_out, int sd_recv, >> + struct maps *maps, int status) >> +{ >> + unsigned int drop, pass; >> + char *send_buf = "ab"; >> + char recv_buf = '\0'; >> + ssize_t n, len = 1; >> + /* Zero out the verdict map */ >> + if (xbpf_map_update_elem(maps->verd, &u32(SK_DROP), &u32(0), BPF_ANY) || >> + xbpf_map_update_elem(maps->verd, &u32(SK_PASS), &u32(0), BPF_ANY)) >> + return; >> + >> + if (xbpf_map_update_elem(maps->in, &u32(0), &u64(sd_in), BPF_NOEXIST)) >> + return; >> + >> + if (xbpf_map_update_elem(maps->out, &u32(0), &u64(sd_out), BPF_NOEXIST)) >> + goto del_in; >> + >> + /* Last byte is OOB data when send_flags has MSG_OOB bit set */ >> + if (send_flags & MSG_OOB) >> + len++; >> + n = send(sd_send, send_buf, len, send_flags); >> + if (n >= 0 && n < len) >> + FAIL("incomplete send"); >> + if (n < 0) { >> + /* sk_msg redirect combo not supported? */ >> + if (status & SUPPORTED || errno != EACCES) >> + FAIL_ERRNO("send"); >> + goto out; >> + } >> + >> + if (!(status & SUPPORTED)) { >> + handle_unsupported(sd_send, sd_peer, sd_in, sd_out, sd_recv, >> + maps->verd, status); >> + goto out; >> + } >> + >> + errno = 0; >> + n = recv_timeout(sd_recv, &recv_buf, 1, 0, IO_TIMEOUT_SEC); >> + if (n != 1) { >> + FAIL_ERRNO("recv_timeout()"); >> + goto out; >> + } > I prefer multiple send and receive operations, or implementing a loop at > the outer level. If you referring to MSG_OOB that "emulates" multiple send(), that's quite deliberate: to exercise what is actually happening on unix_stream_sendmsg(, MSG_OOB). And, well, to follow the selftests logic in sockmap_listen.c:pairs_redir_to_connected(). Would you rather have it split anyway? Thanks, Michal