[bpf-next,v2,0/4] transition sockmap testing to test_progs

Message

John Fastabend Jan. 24, 2024, 6:53 p.m. UTC

Its much easier to write and read tests than it was when sockmap was
originally created. At that time we created a test_sockmap prog that
did sockmap tests. But, its showing its age now. For example it reads
user vars out of maps, is hard to run targetted tests, has a different
format from the familiar test_progs and so on.

I recently thought there was an issue with pop helpers so I created
some tests to try and track it down. It turns out it was a bug in the
BPF program we had not the kernel. But, I think it makes sense to
start deprecating test_sockmap and converting these to the nicer
test_progs.

So this is a first round of test_prog tests for sockmap cork and
pop helpers. I'll add push and pull tests shortly. I think its fine,
maybe preferred to review smaller patchsets, to send these
incrementally as I get them created.

Thanks!

v2: fix unint vars in some branches from `make RELEASE=1`


John Fastabend (4):
  bpf: sockmap, add test for sk_msg prog pop msg helper
  bpf: sockmap, add a sendmsg test so we can check that path
  bpf: sockmap, add a cork to force buffering of the scatterlist
  bpf: sockmap test cork and pop combined

 .../bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_helpers.h          |  18 +
 .../bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_msg_helpers.c      | 353 ++++++++++++++++++
 .../bpf/progs/test_sockmap_msg_helpers.c      |  67 ++++
 3 files changed, 438 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_msg_helpers.c
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_sockmap_msg_helpers.c

Comments

John Fastabend Jan. 24, 2024, 10:58 p.m. UTC | #1

John Fastabend wrote:
> Its much easier to write and read tests than it was when sockmap was
> originally created. At that time we created a test_sockmap prog that
> did sockmap tests. But, its showing its age now. For example it reads
> user vars out of maps, is hard to run targetted tests, has a different
> format from the familiar test_progs and so on.
> 
> I recently thought there was an issue with pop helpers so I created
> some tests to try and track it down. It turns out it was a bug in the
> BPF program we had not the kernel. But, I think it makes sense to
> start deprecating test_sockmap and converting these to the nicer
> test_progs.
> 
> So this is a first round of test_prog tests for sockmap cork and
> pop helpers. I'll add push and pull tests shortly. I think its fine,
> maybe preferred to review smaller patchsets, to send these
> incrementally as I get them created.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> v2: fix unint vars in some branches from `make RELEASE=1`

I'll wait a bit to see if there is any additional feedback, but on
bpf-next these tests were stable. When we backported to 6.1
they became a bit flaky because recv() would sometimes only get
part of the msg. I'll take a look, but this should be fine adding
a retry logic to the recv() so it does a few recv's before giving
up allows it to recv partial messages, but still pass the test.

Thanks,
John

Jakub Sitnicki Jan. 26, 2024, 2:39 p.m. UTC | #2

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:53 AM -08, John Fastabend wrote:
> Its much easier to write and read tests than it was when sockmap was
> originally created. At that time we created a test_sockmap prog that
> did sockmap tests. But, its showing its age now. For example it reads
> user vars out of maps, is hard to run targetted tests, has a different
> format from the familiar test_progs and so on.
>
> I recently thought there was an issue with pop helpers so I created
> some tests to try and track it down. It turns out it was a bug in the
> BPF program we had not the kernel. But, I think it makes sense to
> start deprecating test_sockmap and converting these to the nicer
> test_progs.
>
> So this is a first round of test_prog tests for sockmap cork and
> pop helpers. I'll add push and pull tests shortly. I think its fine,
> maybe preferred to review smaller patchsets, to send these
> incrementally as I get them created.

Cool to see this transition starting.

John Fastabend Jan. 26, 2024, 3:40 p.m. UTC | #3

Jakub Sitnicki wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:53 AM -08, John Fastabend wrote:
> > Its much easier to write and read tests than it was when sockmap was
> > originally created. At that time we created a test_sockmap prog that
> > did sockmap tests. But, its showing its age now. For example it reads
> > user vars out of maps, is hard to run targetted tests, has a different
> > format from the familiar test_progs and so on.
> >
> > I recently thought there was an issue with pop helpers so I created
> > some tests to try and track it down. It turns out it was a bug in the
> > BPF program we had not the kernel. But, I think it makes sense to
> > start deprecating test_sockmap and converting these to the nicer
> > test_progs.
> >
> > So this is a first round of test_prog tests for sockmap cork and
> > pop helpers. I'll add push and pull tests shortly. I think its fine,
> > maybe preferred to review smaller patchsets, to send these
> > incrementally as I get them created.
> 
> Cool to see this transition starting.

Thanks for the review.