In this series from Geliang, modifying MPTCP BPF selftests, we have:
- SIGINT support
- A new macro to reduce duplicated code
- A new MPTCP subflow BPF program setting socket options per subflow: it
looks better to have this old test program in the BPF selftests to
track regressions and to serve as example.
Note: Nicolas is no longer working for Tessares, but he did this work
while working for them, and his email address is no longer available.
- A new MPTCP BPF subtest validating the new BPF program.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
---
Geliang Tang (3):
selftests/bpf: Handle SIGINT when creating netns
selftests/bpf: Add RUN_MPTCP_TEST macro
selftests/bpf: Add mptcp subflow subtest
Nicolas Rybowski (1):
selftests/bpf: Add mptcp subflow example
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++-
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/mptcp_subflow.c | 70 ++++++++++++
2 files changed, 193 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 329a6720a3ebbc041983b267981ab2cac102de93
change-id: 20240506-upstream-bpf-next-20240506-mptcp-subflow-test-faef6654bfa3
Best regards,
--
Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
From: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes
test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to
simpolify the code.
Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
@@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void)
close(cgroup_fd);
}
+#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix) \
+do { \
+ if (test__start_subtest(#suffix)) \
+ test_##suffix(); \
+} while (0)
+
void test_mptcp(void)
{
- if (test__start_subtest("base"))
- test_base();
- if (test__start_subtest("mptcpify"))
- test_mptcpify();
+ RUN_MPTCP_TEST(base);
+ RUN_MPTCP_TEST(mptcpify);
}
--
2.43.0
From: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
This patch adds a subtest named test_subflow to load and verify the newly
added mptcp subflow example in test_mptcp. Add a helper endpoint_init()
to add a new subflow endpoint. Add another helper ss_search() to verify the
fwmark and congestion values set by mptcp_subflow prog using setsockopts.
Closes: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/issues/76
Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 108 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
index 9d1b255bb654..b1f4b74efd2b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
@@ -9,8 +9,12 @@
#include "network_helpers.h"
#include "mptcp_sock.skel.h"
#include "mptcpify.skel.h"
+#include "mptcp_subflow.skel.h"
#define NS_TEST "mptcp_ns"
+#define ADDR_1 "10.0.1.1"
+#define ADDR_2 "10.0.1.2"
+#define PORT_1 10001
#ifndef IPPROTO_MPTCP
#define IPPROTO_MPTCP 262
@@ -347,6 +351,109 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void)
close(cgroup_fd);
}
+static int endpoint_init(char *flags)
+{
+ SYS(fail, "ip -net %s link add veth1 type veth peer name veth2", NS_TEST);
+ SYS(fail, "ip -net %s addr add %s/24 dev veth1", NS_TEST, ADDR_1);
+ SYS(fail, "ip -net %s link set dev veth1 up", NS_TEST);
+ SYS(fail, "ip -net %s addr add %s/24 dev veth2", NS_TEST, ADDR_2);
+ SYS(fail, "ip -net %s link set dev veth2 up", NS_TEST);
+ SYS(fail, "ip -net %s mptcp endpoint add %s %s", NS_TEST, ADDR_2, flags);
+
+ return 0;
+fail:
+ return -1;
+}
+
+static int _ss_search(char *src, char *dst, char *port, char *keyword)
+{
+ char cmd[128];
+ int n;
+
+ n = snprintf(cmd, sizeof(cmd),
+ "ip netns exec %s ss -Menita src %s dst %s %s %d | grep -q '%s'",
+ NS_TEST, src, dst, port, PORT_1, keyword);
+ if (n < 0 || n >= sizeof(cmd))
+ return -1;
+
+ return system(cmd);
+}
+
+static int ss_search(char *src, char *keyword)
+{
+ return _ss_search(src, ADDR_1, "dport", keyword);
+}
+
+static void run_subflow(char *new)
+{
+ int server_fd, client_fd, err;
+ char cc[TCP_CA_NAME_MAX];
+ socklen_t len = sizeof(cc);
+
+ server_fd = start_mptcp_server(AF_INET, ADDR_1, PORT_1, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(server_fd, 0, "start_mptcp_server"))
+ return;
+
+ client_fd = connect_to_fd(server_fd, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(client_fd, 0, "connect to fd"))
+ goto fail;
+
+ err = getsockopt(server_fd, SOL_TCP, TCP_CONGESTION, cc, &len);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "getsockopt(srv_fd, TCP_CONGESTION)"))
+ goto fail;
+
+ send_byte(client_fd);
+
+ ASSERT_OK(ss_search(ADDR_1, "fwmark:0x1"), "ss_search fwmark:0x1");
+ ASSERT_OK(ss_search(ADDR_2, "fwmark:0x2"), "ss_search fwmark:0x2");
+ ASSERT_OK(ss_search(ADDR_1, new), "ss_search new cc");
+ ASSERT_OK(ss_search(ADDR_2, cc), "ss_search default cc");
+
+ close(client_fd);
+fail:
+ close(server_fd);
+}
+
+static void test_subflow(void)
+{
+ int cgroup_fd, prog_fd, err;
+ struct mptcp_subflow *skel;
+ struct nstoken *nstoken;
+
+ cgroup_fd = test__join_cgroup("/mptcp_subflow");
+ if (!ASSERT_GE(cgroup_fd, 0, "join_cgroup: mptcp_subflow"))
+ return;
+
+ skel = mptcp_subflow__open_and_load();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "skel_open_load: mptcp_subflow"))
+ goto close_cgroup;
+
+ err = mptcp_subflow__attach(skel);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "skel_attach: mptcp_subflow"))
+ goto skel_destroy;
+
+ prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(skel->progs.mptcp_subflow);
+ err = bpf_prog_attach(prog_fd, cgroup_fd, BPF_CGROUP_SOCK_OPS, 0);
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(err, "prog_attach"))
+ goto skel_destroy;
+
+ nstoken = create_netns();
+ if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(nstoken, "create_netns: mptcp_subflow"))
+ goto skel_destroy;
+
+ if (!ASSERT_OK(endpoint_init("subflow"), "endpoint_init"))
+ goto close_netns;
+
+ run_subflow(skel->data->cc);
+
+close_netns:
+ cleanup_netns(nstoken);
+skel_destroy:
+ mptcp_subflow__destroy(skel);
+close_cgroup:
+ close(cgroup_fd);
+}
+
#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix) \
do { \
if (test__start_subtest(#suffix)) \
@@ -357,4 +464,5 @@ void test_mptcp(void)
{
RUN_MPTCP_TEST(base);
RUN_MPTCP_TEST(mptcpify);
+ RUN_MPTCP_TEST(subflow);
}
--
2.43.0
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
>
> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes
> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to
> simpolify the code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void)
> close(cgroup_fd);
> }
>
> +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix) \
> +do { \
> + if (test__start_subtest(#suffix)) \
> + test_##suffix(); \
> +} while (0)
Please no.
Don't hide it behind macros.
> void test_mptcp(void)
> {
> - if (test__start_subtest("base"))
> - test_base();
> - if (test__start_subtest("mptcpify"))
> - test_mptcpify();
> + RUN_MPTCP_TEST(base);
> + RUN_MPTCP_TEST(mptcpify);
> }
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Hi Alexei,
Thank you for the review!
On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
>>
>> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes
>> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to
>> simpolify the code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>> index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>> @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void)
>> close(cgroup_fd);
>> }
>>
>> +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix) \
>> +do { \
>> + if (test__start_subtest(#suffix)) \
>> + test_##suffix(); \
>> +} while (0)
>
> Please no.
> Don't hide it behind macros.
I understand, I'm personally not a big fan of hiding code being a macro
too. This one saves only one line. Geliang added a few more tests in our
tree [1], for a total of 9, so that's only saving 9 lines.
Related to that, if you don't mind, Geliang also added another macro --
MPTCP_SCHED_TEST -- for tests that are currently only in our tree [2]
(not ready yet). We asked him to reduce the size of this macro to the
minimum. We accepted it because it removed quite a lot of similar code
with very small differences [3]. Do you think we should revert this
modification too?
[1]
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L578-L595
[2]
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L559-L576
[3]
https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/[email protected]/T/#m0b9c14f1cbae8653c6fd119f6b71d1797961d6ba
Cheers,
Matt
--
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.
On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:02 AM Matthieu Baerts <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexei,
>
> Thank you for the review!
>
> On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes
> >> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to
> >> simpolify the code.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
> >> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <[email protected]>
> >> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++----
> >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> >> index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644
> >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
> >> @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void)
> >> close(cgroup_fd);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix) \
> >> +do { \
> >> + if (test__start_subtest(#suffix)) \
> >> + test_##suffix(); \
> >> +} while (0)
> >
> > Please no.
> > Don't hide it behind macros.
>
> I understand, I'm personally not a big fan of hiding code being a macro
> too. This one saves only one line. Geliang added a few more tests in our
> tree [1], for a total of 9, so that's only saving 9 lines.
>
> Related to that, if you don't mind, Geliang also added another macro --
> MPTCP_SCHED_TEST -- for tests that are currently only in our tree [2]
> (not ready yet). We asked him to reduce the size of this macro to the
> minimum. We accepted it because it removed quite a lot of similar code
> with very small differences [3]. Do you think we should revert this
> modification too?
Yeah. Pls don't hide such things in macros.
Refactor into helper function in normal C.
But, what do you mean "in your tree" ?
That's your development tree and you plan to send all that
properly as patches to bpf-next someday?
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L578-L595
>
> [2]
> https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/blob/4369d9cbd752e166961ac0db7f85886111606301/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c#L559-L576
>
> [3]
> https://lore.kernel.org/mptcp/[email protected]/T/#m0b9c14f1cbae8653c6fd119f6b71d1797961d6ba
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
> --
> Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.
>
Hi Alexei,
Thank you for your reply!
On 07/05/2024 22:51, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:02 AM Matthieu Baerts <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alexei,
>>
>> Thank you for the review!
>>
>> On 07/05/2024 16:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 3:53 AM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Each MPTCP subtest tests test__start_subtest(suffix), then invokes
>>>> test_suffix(). It makes sense to add a new macro RUN_MPTCP_TEST to
>>>> simpolify the code.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Mat Martineau <[email protected]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>>>> index baf976a7a1dd..9d1b255bb654 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
>>>> @@ -347,10 +347,14 @@ static void test_mptcpify(void)
>>>> close(cgroup_fd);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +#define RUN_MPTCP_TEST(suffix) \
>>>> +do { \
>>>> + if (test__start_subtest(#suffix)) \
>>>> + test_##suffix(); \
>>>> +} while (0)
>>>
>>> Please no.
>>> Don't hide it behind macros.
>>
>> I understand, I'm personally not a big fan of hiding code being a macro
>> too. This one saves only one line. Geliang added a few more tests in our
>> tree [1], for a total of 9, so that's only saving 9 lines.
>>
>> Related to that, if you don't mind, Geliang also added another macro --
>> MPTCP_SCHED_TEST -- for tests that are currently only in our tree [2]
>> (not ready yet). We asked him to reduce the size of this macro to the
>> minimum. We accepted it because it removed quite a lot of similar code
>> with very small differences [3]. Do you think we should revert this
>> modification too?
>
> Yeah. Pls don't hide such things in macros.
> Refactor into helper function in normal C.
Sure, we will revert that.
> But, what do you mean "in your tree" ?
> That's your development tree and you plan to send all that
> properly as patches to bpf-next someday?
Yes, correct, we have some WIP patches in MPTCP development tree where
we added a new bpf_struct_ops structure to implement new MPTCP packet
schedulers in BPF. This work was paused for a while because we had to
refine the packet scheduler API, but this task is now ongoing. Hopefully
we will be able to send patches to bpf-next this "soon".
Cheers,
Matt
--
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.