From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 19:18:56 +0100 Subject: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/2] Rewrite route stress tests into C In-Reply-To: References: <20190124161735.19609-1-pvorel@suse.cz> Message-ID: <20190129181856.GA17728@dell5510> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Alexey, thanks for your comments. > > Some issues: > > * The test is only on lhost, no attempt to set iface on rhost and check > > connection. The only check is done via error of libnl used. It's > > questionable whether this way is good enough. > True, it would be better to verify that the route is working and usable. > At least, we could open a socket and send something using the route > (ns-udpsender way)... OK, I'll try at least this. And if it's not suitable enough, I'll have to get back to shell (or I'd have to implement tst_rhost_run() in C). > > If we want to have established connection, it'd be better to get back to > > shell testing [1], just replace netstress to new tool (I'd prefer not > > use ns-udpsender).> > > * rtnetlink is used via libnl, which is very lazy approach. > > As subject of testing is route testing and not rtnetlink testing I > > didn't reimplement rtnetlink socket communication from scratch, but I > > guess I should. Also using link caching (used by functions from libnl-cli) > > might not be a good idea (maybe using libmnl or only libnl-route would > > be better if using library). > And libmnl has an example: > https://git.netfilter.org/libmnl/tree/examples/rtnl/rtnl-route-add.c I noticed this as well, I'll use libmnl. Kind regards, Petr