Re: [PATCH bpf] selftests/bpf: remove sockmap_ktls disconnect_after_delete test

["Jiayuan Chen" <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>]

April 16, 2025 at 01:37, "Ihor Solodrai" <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev> wrote:



> 
> On 4/15/25 10:05 AM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 10:01 AM Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > On 4/15/25 9:53 AM, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> >  April 16, 2025 at 24:33, "Ihor Solodrai" <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev> wrote:
> > 
> >  "sockmap_ktls disconnect_after_delete" test has been failing on BPF CI
> > 
> >  after recent merges from netdev:
> > 
> >  * https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/14458537639
> > 
> >  * https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/14457178732
> > 
> >  It happens because disconnect has been disabled for TLS [1], and it
> > 
> >  renders the test case invalid. Remove it from the suite.
> > 
> >  [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250404180334.3224206-1-kuba@kernel.org/
> > 
> >  Signed-off-by: Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>
> > 
> >  Reviewed-by: Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>
> > 
> >  The original selftest patch used disconnect to re-produce the endless
> >  loop caused by tcp_bpf_unhash, which has already been removed.
> >  I hope this doesn't conflict with bpf-next...
> > 
> > > 
> > > I just tried applying to bpf-next, and it does indeed have a
> > >  conflict... Although kdiff3 merged it automatically.
> > >  What's the right way to resolve this? Send for bpf-next?
> > > 
> >  What commit in bpf-next does it conflict with ?
> >  In general, avoiding merge conflicts is preferred.
> > 
> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/commit/?id=05ebde1bcb50a71cd56d8edd3008f53a781146e9
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250219052015.274405-1-jiayuan.chen@linux.dev/
> It adds tests in the same file. The code to delete simply moved.
> I think we can avoid conflict by applying 05ebde1bcb50 to bpf first,
> if that's an option (it might depend on other changes, idk).
> Then the version of the patch for bpf-next would apply to both trees.
> If not, then apply only to bpf-next, and disable the test on CI?
>


I'm not sure whether we can cherry-pick the commit to bpf branch.

I believe it would be more convenient for the maintainer to merge the
patch that only removes 'ASSERT_OK(err, "disconnect");', as this change
will not introduce conflicts with the bpf-next branch.
Once the bpf branch is merged into bpf-next, you can then remove the
entire function in the bpf-next branch.