Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/1] selftests: drv-net: XDP RX checksum metadata test

[Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1814 bytes --]

> Hi Lorenzo,

Hi Vladimir,

> 
> Here is the driver selftest for your XDP RX checksum series, as
> discussed. It is written against your b4/bpf-xdp-meta-rxcksum branch
> (the bitmask ip_summed + cksum/cksum_level API) and applies on top of
> it rebased onto net-next, since the drv-net xdp_metadata.py test it
> extends only exists there. Feel free to pick it straight into v4.
> 
> It adds an xdp_rx_csum program to xdp_metadata.bpf.o and two cases
> gated on the "checksum" xdp-rx-metadata feature (SKIP on devices
> without it, e.g. netdevsim):
> 
>  - xdp_rx_csum_valid (tcp/udp variants): traffic with a correct
>    checksum from the remote endpoint must be reported with a usable
>    verdict (CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY and/or CHECKSUM_COMPLETE);
> 
>  - xdp_rx_csum_invalid: UDP with a corrupted L4 checksum (net/lib
>    csum -E) must not be reported as CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY.

thx for working on it. Unfortunately I do not have the time to look into it a
the moment. I rebased my b4/bpf-xdp-meta-rxcksum branch on top of net-next one.
Feel free to repost it adding your patch on top of it.

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
> 
> One question on the invalid case: I assert only that UNNECESSARY is not
> set for a corrupted checksum (COMPLETE may still legitimately be
> reported, since it carries the raw sum for wrong packets too). Is that
> the documented expectation you and Jakub want the test to encode, or
> should it be stricter?
> 
> Thanks,
> Vladimir
> 
> Vladimir Vdovin (1):
>   selftests: drv-net: add XDP RX checksum metadata tests
> 
>  .../selftests/drivers/net/hw/xdp_metadata.py  | 103 ++++++++++++++++
>  .../selftests/net/lib/xdp_metadata.bpf.c      | 112 ++++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 202 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.47.0
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]