Re: [PATCH net-next 8/8] selftests: net: add UDP GRO forwarding self-tests
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Date: 2021-03-22 13:46:38
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 1:02 PM Paolo Abeni [off-list ref] wrote:
create a bunch of virtual topology and verify that GRO_FRAG_LIST and GRO_FWD aggregate the ingress
what are these constants? Aliases for SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST and ?
packets as expected, and the aggregate packets are segmented correctly when landing on a socket Also test L4 aggregation on top of UDP tunnel (vxlan) Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Nice comprehensive test, thanks!
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile | 1 + tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh | 251 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 252 insertions(+) create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.shdiff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile index 25f198bec0b25..2d71b283dde36 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ TEST_PROGS += drop_monitor_tests.sh TEST_PROGS += vrf_route_leaking.sh TEST_PROGS += bareudp.sh TEST_PROGS += unicast_extensions.sh +TEST_PROGS += udpgro_fwd.sh TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED := in_netns.sh TEST_GEN_FILES = socket nettest TEST_GEN_FILES += psock_fanout psock_tpacket msg_zerocopy reuseport_addr_anydiff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh new file mode 100755 index 0000000000000..ac7ac56a27524 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@ +#!/bin/sh +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +readonly BASE="ns-$(mktemp -u XXXXXX)" +readonly SRC=2 +readonly DST=1 +readonly DST_NAT=100 +readonly NS_SRC=$BASE$SRC +readonly NS_DST=$BASE$DST + +# "baremetal" network used for raw UDP traffic +readonly BM_NET_V4=192.168.1. +readonly BM_NET_V6=2001:db8:: + +# "overlay" network used for UDP over UDP tunnel traffic +readonly OL_NET_V4=172.16.1. +readonly OL_NET_V6=2002:db8::
is it okay to use a prod64 prefix for this? should this be another subnet of 2001:db8:: instead? of fd..