Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: fix ct status check in bpf_nf selftests
From: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Date: 2022-09-08 01:04:50
Also in:
bpf, netfilter-devel
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 3:56 AM Lorenzo Bianconi [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Check properly the connection tracking entry status configured running bpf_ct_change_status kfunc. Remove unnecessary IPS_CONFIRMED status configuration since it is already done during entry allocation. Fixes: 6eb7fba007a7 ("selftests/bpf: Add tests for new nf_conntrack kfuncs") Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org> --- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c | 4 ++-- tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c | 8 +++++--- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c index 544bf90ac2a7..903d16e3abed 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c@@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ static void test_bpf_nf_ct(int mode) /* allow some tolerance for test_delta_timeout value to avoid races. */ ASSERT_GT(skel->bss->test_delta_timeout, 8, "Test for min ct timeout update"); ASSERT_LE(skel->bss->test_delta_timeout, 10, "Test for max ct timeout update"); - /* expected status is IPS_SEEN_REPLY */ - ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_status, 2, "Test for ct status update "); + /* expected status is IPS_CONFIRMED | IPS_SEEN_REPLY */ + ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test_status, 0xa, "Test for ct status update ");
Why do we use 0xa instead of IPS_CONFIRMED | IPS_SEEN_REPLY? To avoid dependency on the header file? Thanks, Song