Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:29:12 +0200 | From | netdev@kapio-te ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add test of MAC-Auth Bypass to locked port tests |
| |
On 2022-09-12 11:08, Ido Schimmel wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:23:55AM +0200, netdev@kapio-technology.com > wrote: >> On 2022-09-11 02:13, Vladimir Oltean wrote: >> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 03:11:56PM +0200, netdev@kapio-technology.com >> > wrote: >> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:10:07PM +0200, netdev@kapio-technology.com wrote: >> > > > > > > I am at the blackhole driver implementation now, as I suppose that the >> > > > > > > iproute2 command should work with the mv88e6xxx driver when adding blackhole >> > > > > > > entries (with a added selftest)? >> > > > > > > I decided to add the blackhole feature as new ops for drivers with functions >> > > > > > > blackhole_fdb_add() and blackhole_fdb_del(). Do you agree with that approach? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I assume you are talking about extending 'dsa_switch_ops'? >> > > > > >> > > > > Yes, that is the idea. >> > > > > >> > > > > > If so, it's up to the DSA maintainers to decide. >> > > > >> > > > What will be the usefulness of adding a blackhole FDB entry from user >> > > > space? >> > > >> > > With the software bridge it could be used to signal a untrusted host >> > > in >> > > connection with a locked port entry attempt. I don't see so much use >> > > other >> > > that test purposes with the driver though. >> > >> > Not a huge selling point, to be honest. Can't the blackhole flag remain >> > settable only in the device -> bridge direction, with user space just >> > reading it? >> >> That is possible, but it would of course not make sense to have >> selftests of >> the feature as that would not work unless there is a driver with this >> capability (now just mv88e6xxx). > > The new "blackhole" flag requires changes in the bridge driver and > without allowing user space to add such entries, the only way to test > these changes is with mv88e6xxx which many of us do not have...
I am now building from new system (comp), and the kernel selftests are not being installed correctly, so I haven't been able to run the selftests yet.
I have made a blackhole selftest, which looks like this:
test_blackhole_fdb() { RET=0
check_blackhole_fdb_support || return 0
tcpdump_start $h2 $MZ $h1 -q -t udp -a $h1 -b $h2 tcpdump_stop tcpdump_show | grep -q udp check_err $? "test_blackhole_fdb: No packet seen on initial" tcpdump_cleanup
bridge fdb add `mac_get $h2` dev br0 blackhole bridge fdb show dev br0 | grep -q "blackhole" check_err $? "test_blackhole_fdb: No blackhole FDB entry found"
tcpdump_start $h2 $MZ $h1 -q -t udp -a $h1 -b $h2 tcpdump_stop tcpdump_show | grep -q udp check_fail $? "test_blackhole_fdb: packet seen with blackhole fdb entry" tcpdump_cleanup
bridge fdb del `mac_get $h2` dev br0 blackhole bridge fdb show dev br0 | grep -q "blackhole" check_fail $? "test_blackhole_fdb: Blackhole FDB entry not deleted"
tcpdump_start $h2 $MZ $h1 -q -t udp -a $h1 -b $h2 tcpdump_stop tcpdump_show | grep -q udp check_err $? "test_blackhole_fdb: No packet seen after removing blackhole FDB entry" tcpdump_cleanup
log_test "Blackhole FDB entry test" }
the setup is simple and is the same as in bridge_sticky_fdb.sh.
Does the test look sound or is there obvious mistakes?
| |