Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: fix ct status check in bpf_nf selftests

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 3:56 AM Lorenzo Bianconi [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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?

nope, thx for reporting it. I will fix it in v2.

Regards,
Lorenzo

Thanks,
Song