On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:44, Ido Schimmel idosch@nvidia.com wrote:
- $MZ $swp1 -c 1 -p 128 -t udp "sp=54321,dp=12345" \
-a $mac -b `mac_get $h2` -A 192.0.2.1 -B 192.0.2.2 -q- tc_check_packets "dev $swp2 egress" 1 1
- check_fail $? "Dynamic FDB entry did not age out"
Shouldn't this be check_err()? After the FDB entry was aged you want to make sure that packets received via $swp1 with SMAC being $mac are no longer forwarded by the bridge.
I was thinking that check_fail() will pass when tc_check_packets() does not see any packets, thus the test passing here when no packets are forwarded?
What do you mean by "I was *thinking*"? How is it possible that you are submitting a selftest that you didn't bother running?!
I see you trimmed my earlier question: "Does this actually work?"
I tried it and it passed:
# ./bridge_locked_port.sh TEST: Locked port ipv4 [ OK ] TEST: Locked port ipv6 [ OK ] TEST: Locked port vlan [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB roam [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB configuration [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB FDB flush [ OK ]
And I couldn't understand how that's even possible. Then I realized that the entire test is dead code because the patch is missing this fundamental hunk:
``` diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh index dbc7017fd45d..5bf6b2aa1098 100755 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_locked_port.sh @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ ALL_TESTS=" locked_port_mab_roam locked_port_mab_config locked_port_mab_flush + locked_port_dyn_fdb "
NUM_NETIFS=4 ```
Which tells me that you didn't even try running it once. Now the test failed as I expected:
# ./bridge_locked_port.sh TEST: Locked port ipv4 [ OK ] TEST: Locked port ipv6 [ OK ] TEST: Locked port vlan [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB roam [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB configuration [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB FDB flush [ OK ] TEST: Locked port dyn FDB [FAIL] Packet not seen on egress after adding dynamic FDB
Fixed by:
``` @@ -336,7 +337,7 @@ locked_port_dyn_fdb() tc filter add dev $swp2 egress protocol ip pref 1 handle 1 flower \ dst_ip 192.0.2.2 ip_proto udp dst_port 12345 action pass
- $MZ $swp1 -c 1 -p 128 -t udp "sp=54321,dp=12345" \ + $MZ $h1 -c 1 -p 128 -t udp "sp=54321,dp=12345" \ -a $mac -b `mac_get $h2` -A 192.0.2.1 -B 192.0.2.2 -q tc_check_packets "dev $swp2 egress" 1 1 check_err $? "Packet not seen on egress after adding dynamic FDB" ```
Ran it again and it failed because of the second issue I pointed out:
# ./bridge_locked_port.sh TEST: Locked port ipv4 [ OK ] TEST: Locked port ipv6 [ OK ] TEST: Locked port vlan [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB roam [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB configuration [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB FDB flush [ OK ] TEST: Locked port dyn FDB [FAIL] Dynamic FDB entry did not age out
Fixed by:
``` @@ -346,7 +347,7 @@ locked_port_dyn_fdb() $MZ $swp1 -c 1 -p 128 -t udp "sp=54321,dp=12345" \ -a $mac -b `mac_get $h2` -A 192.0.2.1 -B 192.0.2.2 -q tc_check_packets "dev $swp2 egress" 1 1 - check_fail $? "Dynamic FDB entry did not age out" + check_err $? "Dynamic FDB entry did not age out"
ip link set dev br0 type bridge ageing_time $ageing_time bridge link set dev $swp1 learning off locked off ```
# ./bridge_locked_port.sh TEST: Locked port ipv4 [ OK ] TEST: Locked port ipv6 [ OK ] TEST: Locked port vlan [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB roam [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB configuration [ OK ] TEST: Locked port MAB FDB flush [ OK ] TEST: Locked port dyn FDB [ OK ]
Sigh