From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-fw-6001.amazon.com (smtp-fw-6001.amazon.com [52.95.48.154]) (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 80102BA33; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 07:05:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=amazon.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=amazon.co.jp Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazon.com header.i=@amazon.com header.b="Xk0Tc1Jd" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amazon.com; i=@amazon.com; q=dns/txt; s=amazon201209; t=1703142304; x=1734678304; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pSSf6YfEkI/G5MSolcsXuueZnr34EfrXqIHSzGNN4Dg=; b=Xk0Tc1JdZL3k+FpTu/bQFv3EK5UFdl9d2O8emhO4oiYg2Y1zSBp8iKHe Y6oKQTNAqF1oc/tkQiDhvQ57rceoXH06pxVFPa0dokOJoCdIzGWp+oitk 1lEMHUkNZzGY1F5jY29joKZlPfB0yNtvTGzj2MvmARQSL9+Me4Y3QGjAt A=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,293,1695686400"; d="scan'208";a="377868137" Received: from iad12-co-svc-p1-lb1-vlan2.amazon.com (HELO email-inbound-relay-pdx-2c-m6i4x-d2040ec1.us-west-2.amazon.com) ([10.43.8.2]) by smtp-border-fw-6001.iad6.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Dec 2023 07:05:00 +0000 Received: from smtpout.prod.us-west-2.prod.farcaster.email.amazon.dev (pdx2-ws-svc-p26-lb5-vlan2.pdx.amazon.com [10.39.38.66]) by email-inbound-relay-pdx-2c-m6i4x-d2040ec1.us-west-2.amazon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E85C40E6D; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 07:04:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from EX19MTAUWB001.ant.amazon.com [10.0.7.35:18773] by smtpin.naws.us-west-2.prod.farcaster.email.amazon.dev [10.0.15.218:2525] with esmtp (Farcaster) id 475f4d02-2202-4e06-889b-24000d3373ac; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 07:04:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Farcaster-Flow-ID: 475f4d02-2202-4e06-889b-24000d3373ac Received: from EX19D004ANA001.ant.amazon.com (10.37.240.138) by EX19MTAUWB001.ant.amazon.com (10.250.64.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.40; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 07:04:58 +0000 Received: from 88665a182662.ant.amazon.com.com (10.143.88.82) by EX19D004ANA001.ant.amazon.com (10.37.240.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.40; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 07:04:53 +0000 From: Kuniyuki Iwashima To: CC: , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 bpf-next 6/6] selftest: bpf: Test bpf_sk_assign_tcp_reqsk(). Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 16:04:43 +0900 Message-ID: <20231221070443.68167-1-kuniyu@amazon.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain X-ClientProxiedBy: EX19D044UWB004.ant.amazon.com (10.13.139.134) To EX19D004ANA001.ant.amazon.com (10.37.240.138) Precedence: Bulk From: Martin KaFai Lau Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:35:26 -0800 > On 12/20/23 5:28 PM, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > > +static int tcp_validate_header(struct tcp_syncookie *ctx) > > +{ > > + s64 csum; > > + > > + if (tcp_reload_headers(ctx)) > > + goto err; > > + > > + csum = bpf_csum_diff(0, 0, (void *)ctx->tcp, ctx->tcp->doff * 4, 0); > > + if (csum < 0) > > + goto err; > > + > > + if (ctx->ipv4) { > > + /* check tcp_v4_csum(csum) is 0 if not on lo. */ > > + > > + csum = bpf_csum_diff(0, 0, (void *)ctx->ipv4, ctx->ipv4->ihl * 4, 0); > > + if (csum < 0) > > + goto err; > > + > > + if (csum_fold(csum) != 0) > > + goto err; > > + } else if (ctx->ipv6) { > > + /* check tcp_v6_csum(csum) is 0 if not on lo. */ > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > +err: > > + return -1; > > +} > > + > > +static int tcp_parse_option(__u32 index, struct tcp_syncookie *ctx) > > +{ > > + char opcode, opsize; > > + > > + if (ctx->ptr + 1 > ctx->data_end) > > + goto stop; > > + > > + opcode = *ctx->ptr++; > > + > > + if (opcode == TCPOPT_EOL) > > + goto stop; > > + > > + if (opcode == TCPOPT_NOP) > > + goto next; > > + > > + if (ctx->ptr + 1 > ctx->data_end) > > + goto stop; > > + > > + opsize = *ctx->ptr++; > > + > > + if (opsize < 2) > > + goto stop; > > + > > + switch (opcode) { > > + case TCPOPT_MSS: > > + if (opsize == TCPOLEN_MSS && ctx->tcp->syn && > > + ctx->ptr + (TCPOLEN_MSS - 2) < ctx->data_end) > > + ctx->attrs.mss = get_unaligned_be16(ctx->ptr); > > + break; > > + case TCPOPT_WINDOW: > > + if (opsize == TCPOLEN_WINDOW && ctx->tcp->syn && > > + ctx->ptr + (TCPOLEN_WINDOW - 2) < ctx->data_end) { > > + ctx->attrs.wscale_ok = 1; > > + ctx->attrs.snd_wscale = *ctx->ptr; > > + } > > + break; > > + case TCPOPT_TIMESTAMP: > > + if (opsize == TCPOLEN_TIMESTAMP && > > + ctx->ptr + (TCPOLEN_TIMESTAMP - 2) < ctx->data_end) { > > + ctx->attrs.rcv_tsval = get_unaligned_be32(ctx->ptr); > > + ctx->attrs.rcv_tsecr = get_unaligned_be32(ctx->ptr + 4); > > + > > + if (ctx->tcp->syn && ctx->attrs.rcv_tsecr) > > + ctx->attrs.tstamp_ok = 0; > > + else > > + ctx->attrs.tstamp_ok = 1; > > + } > > + break; > > + case TCPOPT_SACK_PERM: > > + if (opsize == TCPOLEN_SACK_PERM && ctx->tcp->syn && > > + ctx->ptr + (TCPOLEN_SACK_PERM - 2) < ctx->data_end) > > + ctx->attrs.sack_ok = 1; > > + break; > > + } > > + > > + ctx->ptr += opsize - 2; > > +next: > > + return 0; > > +stop: > > + return 1; > > +} > > + > > +static void tcp_parse_options(struct tcp_syncookie *ctx) > > +{ > > + ctx->ptr = (char *)(ctx->tcp + 1); > > + > > + bpf_loop(40, tcp_parse_option, ctx, 0); > > +} > > + > > +static int tcp_validate_sysctl(struct tcp_syncookie *ctx) > > +{ > > + if ((ctx->ipv4 && ctx->attrs.mss != MSS_LOCAL_IPV4) || > > + (ctx->ipv6 && ctx->attrs.mss != MSS_LOCAL_IPV6)) > > + goto err; > > + > > + if (!ctx->attrs.wscale_ok || ctx->attrs.snd_wscale != 7) > > + goto err; > > + > > + if (!ctx->attrs.tstamp_ok) > > The bpf-ci reported error in cpuv4. The email from bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org has the > link. I like the mail from the bot, it's useful, but it seems that it's sent to the patch author only when the CI passes ? But yeah, I found the failed test. https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/7284164398/job/19849657597 > > I tried the following: > > if (!ctx->attrs.tstamp_ok) { > bpf_printk("ctx->attrs.tstamp_ok %u", > ctx->attrs.tstamp_ok); > goto err; > } > > > The above prints tstamp_ok as 1 while there is a "if (!ctx->attrs.tstamp_ok)" > test before it. > > Yonghong and I debugged it quite a bit. verifier concluded the > ctx->attrs.tstamp_ok is 0. We knew some red herring like cpuv4 has fewer > register spilling but not able to root cause it yet. > > In the mean time, there are existing selftests parsing the tcp header. For > example, the test_parse_tcp_hdr_opt[_dynptr].c. Not as complete as your > tcp_parse_option() but should be pretty close. It does not use bpf_loop. It uses > a bounded loop + a subprog (the parse_hdr_opt in the selftests) instead. You can > consider a similar construct to see if it works around the cpuv4 CI issue for > the time being. Sure, I'll install the latest clang/llvm and check if the test passes without bpf_loop(). Thanks!