From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
To: YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei@google.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Ensure cgroup/connect{4,6} programs can bind unpriv ICMP ping
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 10:16:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <23bbf58b-c376-f9c4-f344-39208dd19520@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA-VZPnMxN7ppWrjOr4oBo6veUVmuPXCj3P3GJdd_v+otSn8Qw@mail.gmail.com>
On 9/2/22 4:52 PM, YiFei Zhu wrote:
>> btw, does it make sense to do it as a subtest in
>> connect_force_port.c or they are very different?
>
> I could try, but they are structured differently; that checks the
> ports whereas this checks the bound IPs. That test also doesn't use
> skels or sets up netns whereas this test does. I think I would prefer
> to have two tests since tests are cheap, but I can try to restructure
> connect_force_port.c in a way that is compatible with both if you
> insist.
Yep. Keeping them separate is fine. I was asking because they are
testing the same hook other than the port-vs-ip difference.
connect[46]_prog.c looks like a better one also but not yet in
test_progs infra. It will be useful to migrate it in the future.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-06 17:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-01 19:15 [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] cgroup/connect{4,6} programs for unprivileged ICMP ping YiFei Zhu
2022-09-01 19:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf: Invoke " YiFei Zhu
2022-09-01 19:15 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Ensure cgroup/connect{4,6} programs can bind unpriv " YiFei Zhu
2022-09-02 5:55 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2022-09-02 23:52 ` YiFei Zhu
2022-09-06 17:16 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2022-09-06 23:52 ` YiFei Zhu
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=23bbf58b-c376-f9c4-f344-39208dd19520@linux.dev \
--to=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
--cc=zhuyifei@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