Test that the prog can read from the connection mark. This test is nice
because it ensures progs can interact with netfilter subsystem
correctly.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c | 3 ++-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c | 3 +++
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
index 88a2c0bdefec..544bf90ac2a7 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int connect_to_server(int srv_fd)
static void test_bpf_nf_ct(int mode)
{
- const char *iptables = "iptables -t raw %s PREROUTING -j CT";
+ const char *iptables = "iptables -t raw %s PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --set-mark 42/0";
int srv_fd = -1, client_fd = -1, srv_client_fd = -1;
struct sockaddr_in peer_addr = {};
struct test_bpf_nf *skel;
@@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ static void test_bpf_nf_ct(int mode)
/* expected status is IPS_SEEN_REPLY */
ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_status, 2, "Test for ct status update ");
ASSERT_EQ(skel->data->test_exist_lookup, 0, "Test existing connection lookup");
+ ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_exist_lookup_mark, 43, "Test existing connection lookup ctmark");
end:
if (srv_client_fd != -1)
close(srv_client_fd);
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c
index 84e0fd479794..2722441850cc 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ __be16 sport = 0;
__be32 daddr = 0;
__be16 dport = 0;
int test_exist_lookup = -ENOENT;
+u32 test_exist_lookup_mark = 0;
struct nf_conn;
@@ -174,6 +175,8 @@ nf_ct_test(struct nf_conn *(*lookup_fn)(void *, struct bpf_sock_tuple *, u32,
sizeof(opts_def));
if (ct) {
test_exist_lookup = 0;
+ if (ct->mark == 42)
+ test_exist_lookup_mark = 43;
bpf_ct_release(ct);
} else {
test_exist_lookup = opts_def.error;
--
2.37.1
On 8/11/22 2:55 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
> Test that the prog can read from the connection mark. This test is nice
> because it ensures progs can interact with netfilter subsystem
> correctly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c | 3 ++-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
> index 88a2c0bdefec..544bf90ac2a7 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int connect_to_server(int srv_fd)
>
> static void test_bpf_nf_ct(int mode)
> {
> - const char *iptables = "iptables -t raw %s PREROUTING -j CT";
> + const char *iptables = "iptables -t raw %s PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --set-mark 42/0";
Hi Daniel Xu, this test starts failing recently in CI [0]:
Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id: Invalid
argument
Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id: Invalid
argument
Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id: Invalid
argument
Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id: Invalid
argument
test_bpf_nf_ct:PASS:test_bpf_nf__open_and_load 0 nsec
test_bpf_nf_ct:FAIL:iptables unexpected error: 1024 (errno 0)
Could you help to take a look? Thanks.
[0]: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/3231598391/jobs/5291529292
> int srv_fd = -1, client_fd = -1, srv_client_fd = -1;
> struct sockaddr_in peer_addr = {};
> struct test_bpf_nf *skel;
> @@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ static void test_bpf_nf_ct(int mode)
> /* expected status is IPS_SEEN_REPLY */
> ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_status, 2, "Test for ct status update ");
> ASSERT_EQ(skel->data->test_exist_lookup, 0, "Test existing connection lookup");
> + ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_exist_lookup_mark, 43, "Test existing connection lookup ctmark");
> end:
> if (srv_client_fd != -1)
> close(srv_client_fd);
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c
> index 84e0fd479794..2722441850cc 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ __be16 sport = 0;
> __be32 daddr = 0;
> __be16 dport = 0;
> int test_exist_lookup = -ENOENT;
> +u32 test_exist_lookup_mark = 0;
>
> struct nf_conn;
>
> @@ -174,6 +175,8 @@ nf_ct_test(struct nf_conn *(*lookup_fn)(void *, struct bpf_sock_tuple *, u32,
> sizeof(opts_def));
> if (ct) {
> test_exist_lookup = 0;
> + if (ct->mark == 42)
> + test_exist_lookup_mark = 43;
> bpf_ct_release(ct);
> } else {
> test_exist_lookup = opts_def.error;
On 10/12/22 3:09 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 10:49:32PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>> On 8/11/22 2:55 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
>>> Test that the prog can read from the connection mark. This test is nice
>>> because it ensures progs can interact with netfilter subsystem
>>> correctly.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <[email protected]>
>>> Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c | 3 ++-
>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c | 3 +++
>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
>>> index 88a2c0bdefec..544bf90ac2a7 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
>>> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int connect_to_server(int srv_fd)
>>> static void test_bpf_nf_ct(int mode)
>>> {
>>> - const char *iptables = "iptables -t raw %s PREROUTING -j CT";
>>> + const char *iptables = "iptables -t raw %s PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --set-mark 42/0";
>> Hi Daniel Xu, this test starts failing recently in CI [0]:
>>
>> Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
>> iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
>> Invalid argument
>>
>> Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
>> iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
>> Invalid argument
>>
>> Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
>> iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
>> Invalid argument
>>
>> Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
>> iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
>> Invalid argument
>>
>> test_bpf_nf_ct:PASS:test_bpf_nf__open_and_load 0 nsec
>> test_bpf_nf_ct:FAIL:iptables unexpected error: 1024 (errno 0)
>>
>> Could you help to take a look? Thanks.
>>
>> [0]: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/3231598391/jobs/5291529292
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks for letting me know. I took a quick look and it seems that
> synproxy selftest is also failing:
>
> 2022-10-12T03:14:20.2007627Z test_synproxy:FAIL:iptables -t raw -I PREROUTING -i tmp1 -p tcp -m tcp --syn --dport 8080 -j CT --notrack unexpected error: 1024 (errno 2)
>
> Googling the "Could not fetch rule set generation id" yields a lot of
> hits. Most of the links are from downstream projects recommending user
> downgrade iptables (nftables) to iptables-legacy.
Thanks for looking into it! We have been debugging a bit today also. I also
think iptables-legacy is the one to use. I posted a patch [0]. Let see how the
CI goes.
The rules that the selftest used is not a lot. I wonder what it takes to remove
the iptables command usage from the selftest?
[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/
>
> So perhaps iptables/nftables suffered a regression somewhere. I'll take
> a closer look tonight / tomorrow morning.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
Daniel Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
> > iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
> > Invalid argument
Martin,
can you give result of
modinfo xt_CONNMARK
and
modinfo nft_compat?
I suspect your kernel lacks nf_tables support.
> > iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
> > Invalid argument
Probably a kernel without nftables support?
> So perhaps iptables/nftables suffered a regression somewhere. I'll take
> a closer look tonight / tomorrow morning.
Possible but unlikely, all those tests pass for me.
Hi Martin,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 10:49:32PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 8/11/22 2:55 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > Test that the prog can read from the connection mark. This test is nice
> > because it ensures progs can interact with netfilter subsystem
> > correctly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <[email protected]>
> > Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c | 3 ++-
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c | 3 +++
> > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
> > index 88a2c0bdefec..544bf90ac2a7 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
> > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int connect_to_server(int srv_fd)
> > static void test_bpf_nf_ct(int mode)
> > {
> > - const char *iptables = "iptables -t raw %s PREROUTING -j CT";
> > + const char *iptables = "iptables -t raw %s PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --set-mark 42/0";
> Hi Daniel Xu, this test starts failing recently in CI [0]:
>
> Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
> iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
> Invalid argument
>
> Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
> iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
> Invalid argument
>
> Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
> iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
> Invalid argument
>
> Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
> iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
> Invalid argument
>
> test_bpf_nf_ct:PASS:test_bpf_nf__open_and_load 0 nsec
> test_bpf_nf_ct:FAIL:iptables unexpected error: 1024 (errno 0)
>
> Could you help to take a look? Thanks.
>
> [0]: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/3231598391/jobs/5291529292
[...]
Thanks for letting me know. I took a quick look and it seems that
synproxy selftest is also failing:
2022-10-12T03:14:20.2007627Z test_synproxy:FAIL:iptables -t raw -I PREROUTING -i tmp1 -p tcp -m tcp --syn --dport 8080 -j CT --notrack unexpected error: 1024 (errno 2)
Googling the "Could not fetch rule set generation id" yields a lot of
hits. Most of the links are from downstream projects recommending user
downgrade iptables (nftables) to iptables-legacy.
So perhaps iptables/nftables suffered a regression somewhere. I'll take
a closer look tonight / tomorrow morning.
Thanks,
Daniel
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 03:20:01PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 10/12/22 3:09 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 10:49:32PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > On 8/11/22 2:55 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > > > Test that the prog can read from the connection mark. This test is nice
> > > > because it ensures progs can interact with netfilter subsystem
> > > > correctly.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <[email protected]>
> > > > Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c | 3 ++-
> > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c | 3 +++
> > > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
> > > > index 88a2c0bdefec..544bf90ac2a7 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c
> > > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int connect_to_server(int srv_fd)
> > > > static void test_bpf_nf_ct(int mode)
> > > > {
> > > > - const char *iptables = "iptables -t raw %s PREROUTING -j CT";
> > > > + const char *iptables = "iptables -t raw %s PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --set-mark 42/0";
> > > Hi Daniel Xu, this test starts failing recently in CI [0]:
> > >
> > > Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
> > > iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
> > > Invalid argument
> > >
> > > Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
> > > iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
> > > Invalid argument
> > >
> > > Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
> > > iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
> > > Invalid argument
> > >
> > > Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module?
> > > iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id:
> > > Invalid argument
> > >
> > > test_bpf_nf_ct:PASS:test_bpf_nf__open_and_load 0 nsec
> > > test_bpf_nf_ct:FAIL:iptables unexpected error: 1024 (errno 0)
> > >
> > > Could you help to take a look? Thanks.
> > >
> > > [0]: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/3231598391/jobs/5291529292
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Thanks for letting me know. I took a quick look and it seems that
> > synproxy selftest is also failing:
> >
> > 2022-10-12T03:14:20.2007627Z test_synproxy:FAIL:iptables -t raw -I PREROUTING -i tmp1 -p tcp -m tcp --syn --dport 8080 -j CT --notrack unexpected error: 1024 (errno 2)
> >
> > Googling the "Could not fetch rule set generation id" yields a lot of
> > hits. Most of the links are from downstream projects recommending user
> > downgrade iptables (nftables) to iptables-legacy.
>
> Thanks for looking into it! We have been debugging a bit today also. I
> also think iptables-legacy is the one to use. I posted a patch [0]. Let
> see how the CI goes.
>
> The rules that the selftest used is not a lot. I wonder what it takes to
> remove the iptables command usage from the selftest?
At least the conntrack mark stuff, it would've been easier to write the
selftests _without_ iptables. But I thought it was both good and
necessary to test interop between BPF and netfilter. B/c that is
what the user is doing (at least for me).
However if it's causing maintenance trouble, I'll leave that call to
you.
Thanks,
Daniel