From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 2/2] selftests: add a selftest for directed broadcast forwarding Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 13:23:41 -0600 Message-ID: <5e5f7edf-1313-cfef-9005-b05ec9051b25@gmail.com> References: <62ecbcf0c905dde3bfde51cd260e2f7c59e21028.1530512974.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> <03b43b2dbda208510514082b2bd94643c3a6580c.1530512974.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: network dev , davem , Davide Caratti , Ido Schimmel To: Xin Long Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:37034 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752762AbeGCTXo (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2018 15:23:44 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f194.google.com with SMTP id h20-v6so1471667pfn.4 for ; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 12:23:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 7/3/18 5:36 AM, Xin Long wrote: > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:12 PM, David Ahern wrote: >> On 7/2/18 12:30 AM, Xin Long wrote: >>> +ping_ipv4() >>> +{ >>> + sysctl_set net.ipv4.icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts 0 >>> + bc_forwarding_disable >>> + ping_test $h1 198.51.100.255 >>> + >>> + iptables -A INPUT -i vrf-r1 -p icmp -j DROP >>> + bc_forwarding_restore >>> + bc_forwarding_enable >>> + ping_test $h1 198.51.100.255 >>> + >>> + bc_forwarding_restore >>> + iptables -D INPUT -i vrf-r1 -p icmp -j DROP >>> + sysctl_restore net.ipv4.icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts >>> +} >> >> Both tests fail for me: >> TEST: ping [FAIL] >> TEST: ping [FAIL] > I think 'ip vrf exec ...' is not working in your env, while > the testing is using "ip vrf exec vrf-h1 ping ..." > > You can test it by: > # ip link add dev vrf-test type vrf table 1111 > # ip vrf exec vrf-test ls well, that's embarrassing. yes, I updated ip and forgot to apply the bpf workaround to define the syscall number (not defined in jessie). > >> >> Why the need for the iptables rule? > This iptables rule is to block the echo_request packet going to > route's local_in. > When bc_forwarding is NOT doing forwarding well but the packet > goes to the route's local_in, it will fail. > > Without this rule, the 2nd ping will always succeed, we can't tell the > echo_reply is from route or h2. > > Or you have a better way to test this? your commands are not a proper test. The test should succeed and fail based on the routing lookup, not iptables rules. > >> >> And, PAUSE_ON_FAIL is not working to take a look at why tests are >> failing. e.g., >> >> PAUSE_ON_FAIL=yes ./router_broadcast.sh >> >> just continues on. Might be something with the infrastructure scripts. > Yes, in ./router_broadcast.sh, it loads lib.sh where it loads forwarding.config > where it has "PAUSE_ON_FAIL=no", which would override your > "PAUSE_ON_FAIL=yes". > ack. bit by that as well.