Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/5] selftests/bpf: xsk selftests framework

On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 09:01, Björn Töpel [off-list ref] wrote:

On 2020-11-26 07:44, Yonghong Song wrote:

quoted

[...]

quoted

What other configures I am missing?

BTW, I cherry-picked the following pick from bpf tree in this experiment.
   commit e7f4a5919bf66e530e08ff352d9b78ed89574e6b (HEAD -> xsk)
   Author: Björn Töpel [off-list ref]
   Date:   Mon Nov 23 18:56:00 2020 +0100

       net, xsk: Avoid taking multiple skbuff references

Hmm, I'm getting an oops, unless I cherry-pick:

36ccdf85829a ("net, xsk: Avoid taking multiple skbuff references")

*AND*

537cf4e3cc2f ("xsk: Fix umem cleanup bug at socket destruct")

from bpf/master.

Same as Bjorn's findings ^^^, additionally applying the second patch
537cf4e3cc2f [PASS] all tests for me

PREREQUISITES: [ PASS ]
SKB NOPOLL: [ PASS ]
SKB POLL: [ PASS ]
DRV NOPOLL: [ PASS ]
DRV POLL: [ PASS ]
SKB SOCKET TEARDOWN: [ PASS ]
DRV SOCKET TEARDOWN: [ PASS ]
SKB BIDIRECTIONAL SOCKETS: [ PASS ]
DRV BIDIRECTIONAL SOCKETS: [ PASS ]

With the first patch alone, as soon as we enter DRV/Native NOPOLL mode
kernel panics, whereas in your case NOPOLL tests were falling with
packets being *lost* as per seqnum mismatch.

Can you please test this out with both patches and let us know?

Can I just run test_xsk.sh at tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ directory?
This will be easier than the above for bpf developers. If it does not
work, I would like to recommend to make it work.

yes test_xsk.shis self contained, will update the instructions in there with v4.

Thanks,
/Weqaar

Björn