From: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>
To: Jordan Rife <jordan@jrife.io>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 bpf-next 10/10] selftests/bpf: Add tests for bucket resume logic in established sockets
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 17:51:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae95a774-2218-4ddc-b2e0-d7bac2b731fd@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250520145059.1773738-11-jordan@jrife.io>
On 5/20/25 7:50 AM, Jordan Rife wrote:
> +static bool close_and_wait(int fd, struct bpf_link *link)
> +{
> + static const int us_per_ms = 1000;
> + __u64 cookie = socket_cookie(fd);
> + struct iter_out out;
> + bool exists = true;
> + int iter_fd, nread;
> + int waits = 20; /* 2 seconds */
> +
> + close(fd);
> +
> + /* Wait for socket to disappear from the ehash table. */
> + while (waits--) {
> + iter_fd = bpf_iter_create(bpf_link__fd(link));
> + if (!ASSERT_OK_FD(iter_fd, "bpf_iter_create"))
> + return false;
> +
> + /* Is it still there? */
> + do {
> + nread = read(iter_fd, &out, sizeof(out));
> + if (!ASSERT_GE(nread, 0, "nread")) {
> + close(iter_fd);
> + return false;
> + }
> + exists = nread && cookie == out.cookie;
> + } while (!exists && nread);
> +
> + close(iter_fd);
> +
> + if (!exists)
> + break;
> +
> + usleep(100 * us_per_ms);
Instead of retrying with the bpf_iter_tcp to confirm the sk is gone from the
ehash table, I think the bpf_sock_destroy() can help here.
> + }
> +
> + return !exists;
> +}
> +
> static int get_seen_count(int fd, struct sock_count counts[], int n)
> {
> __u64 cookie = socket_cookie(fd);
> @@ -241,6 +279,43 @@ static void remove_seen(int family, int sock_type, const char *addr, __u16 port,
> counts_len);
> }
>
> +static void remove_seen_established(int family, int sock_type, const char *addr,
> + __u16 port, int *listen_socks,
> + int listen_socks_len, int *established_socks,
> + int established_socks_len,
> + struct sock_count *counts, int counts_len,
> + struct bpf_link *link, int iter_fd)
> +{
> + int close_idx;
> +
> + /* Iterate through all listening sockets. */
> + read_n(iter_fd, listen_socks_len, counts, counts_len);
> +
> + /* Make sure we saw all listening sockets exactly once. */
> + check_n_were_seen_once(listen_socks, listen_socks_len, listen_socks_len,
> + counts, counts_len);
> +
> + /* Leave one established socket. */
> + read_n(iter_fd, established_socks_len - 1, counts, counts_len);
hmm... In the "SEC("iter/tcp") int iter_tcp_soreuse(...)" bpf prog, there is a
"sk->sk_state != TCP_LISTEN" check and the established sk should have been
skipped. Does it have an existing bug? I suspect it is missing a "()" around
"sk->sk_family == AF_INET6 ? !ipv6_addr_loopback(...) : ...".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-28 0:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-20 14:50 [PATCH v1 bpf-next 00/10] bpf: tcp: Exactly-once socket iteration Jordan Rife
2025-05-20 14:50 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 01/10] bpf: tcp: Make mem flags configurable through bpf_iter_tcp_realloc_batch Jordan Rife
2025-05-21 18:54 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-05-20 14:50 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 02/10] bpf: tcp: Make sure iter->batch always contains a full bucket snapshot Jordan Rife
2025-05-21 22:20 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-05-20 14:50 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 03/10] bpf: tcp: Get rid of st_bucket_done Jordan Rife
2025-05-21 22:57 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-05-21 23:17 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-05-22 18:16 ` Jordan Rife
2025-05-22 20:42 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-05-23 22:07 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2025-05-24 21:09 ` Jordan Rife
2025-05-27 18:19 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2025-05-20 14:50 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 04/10] bpf: tcp: Use bpf_tcp_iter_batch_item for bpf_tcp_iter_state batch items Jordan Rife
2025-05-21 22:59 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima
2025-05-20 14:50 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 05/10] bpf: tcp: Avoid socket skips and repeats during iteration Jordan Rife
2025-05-23 23:05 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2025-05-24 1:24 ` Jordan Rife
2025-05-20 14:50 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 06/10] selftests/bpf: Add tests for bucket resume logic in listening sockets Jordan Rife
2025-05-20 14:50 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 07/10] selftests/bpf: Allow for iteration over multiple ports Jordan Rife
2025-05-20 14:50 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 08/10] selftests/bpf: Make ehash buckets configurable in socket iterator tests Jordan Rife
2025-05-20 14:50 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 09/10] selftests/bpf: Create established sockets " Jordan Rife
2025-05-20 14:50 ` [PATCH v1 bpf-next 10/10] selftests/bpf: Add tests for bucket resume logic in established sockets Jordan Rife
2025-05-28 0:51 ` Martin KaFai Lau [this message]
2025-05-28 18:32 ` Jordan Rife
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=ae95a774-2218-4ddc-b2e0-d7bac2b731fd@linux.dev \
--to=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jordan@jrife.io \
--cc=kuniyu@amazon.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.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