From: "Daniel Zahka" <daniel.zahka@gmail.com>
To: "Wei Wang" <weiwan@google.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
"Andrew Lunn" <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"Shuah Khan" <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: "Simon Horman" <horms@kernel.org>,
"Jakub Sitnicki" <jakub@cloudflare.com>,
"Daniel Zahka" <daniel.zahka@gmail.com>,
"Willem de Bruijn" <willemb@google.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 2/2] selftests/net: psp: test bidirectional data transfer
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2026 16:26:50 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DMMQTFS3ULM2.3HSJGB1UT085M@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261030043145.2185700-3-weiwan@google.com>
On Fri Oct 30, 2026 at 12:31 AM EDT, Wei Wang wrote:
> _data_basic_send() and _data_basic_send_netkit_psp_assoc() currently
> only verify unidirectional data transmission from the test socket to
> psp_responder. As a result, they do not exercise the receive path for
> PSP-encrypted TCP data segments arriving at the test socket (such as
> packets redirected across a netkit interface associated via dev-assoc,
> which relies on SKB_EXT_PSP surviving packet scrubbing).
>
> Use the existing "data echo" command in psp_responder to verify that the
> test socket can also receive PSP-encrypted data from the peer in both
> _data_basic_send() and _data_basic_send_netkit_psp_assoc().
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/psp.py | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/psp.py b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/psp.py
> index 473500901879..e507951b440b 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/psp.py
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/psp.py
> @@ -120,6 +120,12 @@ def _check_data_rx(cfg, exp_len):
> ksft_eq(read_len, exp_len)
>
>
> +def _check_data_echo(cfg, s):
> + _send_with_ack(cfg, b'data echo\0')
> + s.settimeout(1.0)
I'm not a huge fan of setting the blocking timeout here. If we are going
to set a timeout it should be when the socket is created. Otherwise this
function has an unexpected side-effect. Another option is to use non
blocking reads with timeout like:
def _recv_careful(s, target, timeout=2):
"""Read exactly target bytes, tolerating short reads"""
data = b''
end = time.monotonic() + timeout
while time.monotonic() < end:
try:
data += s.recv(target - len(data), socket.MSG_DONTWAIT)
if len(data) == target:
return data
except BlockingIOError:
time.sleep(0.001)
raise KsftFailEx(f"short read, got {len(data)} of {target} bytes")
def _req_echo(cfg, s):
"""Ask the peer to echo, and check the reply arrives intact"""
_send_with_ack(cfg, b'data echo\0')
ksft_eq(_recv_careful(s, 5), b'echo\0')
> + ksft_eq(s.recv(5), b'echo\0')
> +
> +
> def _check_data_outq(s, exp_len, force_wait=False):
> outq = 0
> for _ in range(10):
> @@ -478,6 +484,7 @@ def _data_basic_send(cfg, version, ipver):
>
> data_len = _send_careful(cfg, s, 100)
> _check_data_rx(cfg, data_len)
> + _check_data_echo(cfg, s)
> _close_psp_conn(cfg, s)
>
>
> @@ -726,6 +733,7 @@ def _data_basic_send_netkit_psp_assoc(cfg, version, ipver):
>
> data_len = _send_careful(cfg, sock, 100)
> _check_data_rx(cfg, data_len)
> + _check_data_echo(cfg, sock)
> _close_psp_conn(cfg, sock)
>
>
I'm ok with the approach overall. The coverage is sufficient for the
purposes of the series.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-04 21:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-30 4:31 [PATCH net v2 0/2] net: psp: preserve SKB_EXT_PSP across packet scrubbing Wei Wang
2026-10-30 4:31 ` [PATCH net v2 1/2] net: Make PSP skb extension survive " Wei Wang
2026-11-03 5:31 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2026-11-05 14:09 ` Daniel Zahka
2026-10-30 4:31 ` [PATCH net v2 2/2] selftests/net: psp: test bidirectional data transfer Wei Wang
2026-11-04 21:26 ` Daniel Zahka [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DMMQTFS3ULM2.3HSJGB1UT085M@gmail.com \
--to=daniel.zahka@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=jakub@cloudflare.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=weiwan@google.com \
--cc=willemb@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®