Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add dynamic FDB test

Hans Schultz
2023-03-30T19:10:52Z

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 19:40, Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:44, Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com> wrote:
>> >> + $MZ $swp1 -c 1 -p 128 -t udp "sp=54321,dp=12345" \
>> >> + -a $mac -b `mac_get $h2` -A 192.0.2.1 -B 192.0.2.2 -q
>> >> + tc_check_packets "dev $swp2 egress" 1 1
>> >> + check_fail $? "Dynamic FDB entry did not age out"
>> >
>> > Shouldn't this be check_err()? After the FDB entry was aged you want to
>> > make sure that packets received via $swp1 with SMAC being $mac are no
>> > longer forwarded by the bridge.
>>
>> I was thinking that check_fail() will pass when tc_check_packets() does
>> not see any packets, thus the test passing here when no packets are forwarded?
>
> What do you mean by "I was *thinking*"? How is it possible that you are
> submitting a selftest that you didn't bother running?!
>
> I see you trimmed my earlier question: "Does this actually work?"
>
> I tried it and it passed:
>
> # ./bridge_locked_port.sh
> TEST: Locked port ipv4 [ OK ]
> TEST: Locked port ipv6 [ OK ]
> TEST: Locked port vlan [ OK ]
> TEST: Locked port MAB [ OK ]
> TEST: Locked port MAB roam [ OK ]
> TEST: Locked port MAB configuration [ OK ]
> TEST: Locked port MAB FDB flush [ OK ]
>
> And I couldn't understand how that's even possible. Then I realized that
> the entire test is dead code because the patch is missing this
> fundamental hunk:
>
> ```
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh
> index dbc7017fd45d..5bf6b2aa1098 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh
> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ ALL_TESTS="
> locked_port_mab_roam
> locked_port_mab_config
> locked_port_mab_flush
> + locked_port_dyn_fdb
> "
>
> NUM_NETIFS=4
> ```
>
> Which tells me that you didn't even try running it once.

Not true, it reveals that I forgot to put it in the patch, that's all. As
I cannot run several of these tests because of memory constraints I link
the file to a copy in a rw area where I modify the list and just run one
of the subtests at a time. If I try to run the whole it always fails
after a couple of sub-tests with an error.

It seems to me that these scripts are quite memory consuming as they
accumulate memory consuption in relation to what is loaded along the
way. A major problem with my system.