Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 4/4] selftests/bpf: add icmp_send_unreach kfunc tests

[Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>]

On 7/29/25 4:27 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 7/29/25 2:09 AM, Mahe Tardy wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 06:18:11PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>>> On 7/28/25 2:43 AM, Mahe Tardy wrote:
>>>> +SEC("cgroup_skb/egress")
>>>> +int egress(struct __sk_buff *skb)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    void *data = (void *)(long)skb->data;
>>>> +    void *data_end = (void *)(long)skb->data_end;
>>>> +    struct iphdr *iph;
>>>> +    struct tcphdr *tcph;
>>>> +
>>>> +    iph = data;
>>>> +    if ((void *)(iph + 1) > data_end || iph->version != 4 ||
>>>> +        iph->protocol != IPPROTO_TCP || iph->daddr != bpf_htonl(SERVER_IP))
>>>> +        return SK_PASS;
>>>> +
>>>> +    tcph = (void *)iph + iph->ihl * 4;
>>>> +    if ((void *)(tcph + 1) > data_end ||
>>>> +        tcph->dest != bpf_htons(SERVER_PORT))
>>>> +        return SK_PASS;
>>>> +
>>>> +    kfunc_ret = bpf_icmp_send_unreach(skb, unreach_code);
>>>> +
>>>> +    /* returns SK_PASS to execute the test case quicker */
>>>
>>> Do you know why the user space is slower if 0 (SK_DROP) is used?
>>
>> I tried to write my understanding of this in the commit description:
>>
>> "Note that the BPF program returns SK_PASS to let the connection being
>> established to finish the test cases quicker. Otherwise, you have to
>> wait for the TCP three-way handshake to timeout in the kernel and
>> retrieve the errno translated from the unreach code set by the ICMP
>> control message."
> 
> This feels like a bit hacky to let the 3WHS finished while the objective of the 
> patch set is to drop it. It is not unusual for people to directly borrow this 
> code. Does non blocking connect() help?
> 

After reading more on how sk_err_soft is used, non blocking won't help. I think 
I see why tcp rst is better.